Federal Register Vol. 83, No.109,
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 109 (June 6, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 109 (June 6, 2018)
| Page Range | 26203-26345 | |
| FR Document |
Document Created: 2017-12-29 23:38:21
Document Modified: 2017-12-29 23:38:21
| Page and Subject | |
|---|---|
| 83 FR 26283 - Public Water System Supervision Program; Supplemental Primary Enforcement Responsibility Approval for the Navajo Nation | |
| 83 FR 26345 - Presidential Determination Pursuant to Section 1245(d)(4)(B) and (C) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 | |
| 83 FR 26310 - Annual Board of Directors Meeting; Sunshine Act | |
| 83 FR 26337 - New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Corporation-Trackage Rights Exemption-Illinois Central Railroad Company | |
| 83 FR 26252 - Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and Umpqua National Forest; Oregon; Stella Landscape Restoration Project | |
| 83 FR 26252 - Southern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 26270 - Applications for New Awards; Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language Program | |
| 83 FR 26308 - Fine Denier Polyester Staple Fiber From China, India, Korea, and Taiwan; Supplemental Schedule for the Subject Investigations | |
| 83 FR 26307 - Quartz Surface Products From China | |
| 83 FR 26268 - Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; General Provisions for Domestic Fisheries; Application for Exempted Fishing Permit | |
| 83 FR 26283 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 26282 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Acid Rain Program Under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments (Renewal) | |
| 83 FR 26290 - Criteria for Evidence of Effectiveness To Be Applied to Projects Identified for Inclusion in the What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and Promising Projects To Move Welfare Recipients Into Work | |
| 83 FR 26339 - Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Submission of Audit Reports-Part 248 | |
| 83 FR 26331 - Order Cancelling Registrations of Certain Transfer Agents | |
| 83 FR 26253 - Wallowa-Whitman National Forest; Notice of Availability of the Draft Record of Decision and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project, Oregon | |
| 83 FR 26340 - Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Reporting Required for International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) | |
| 83 FR 26340 - Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Part 249, Preservation of Records | |
| 83 FR 26341 - Agency Information Collection; Activity Under OMB Review; Report of Extension of Credit to Political Candidates | |
| 83 FR 26254 - Notice of Intent To Revise Currently Approved Information Collection | |
| 83 FR 26287 - Solicitation of Nominations for Appointment to the Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) | |
| 83 FR 26288 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board), Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review (SDRR), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) | |
| 83 FR 26255 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 134-Chattanooga, Tennessee; Authorization of Production Activity; Volkswagen Group of America-Chattanooga Operations, LLC (Passenger Motor Vehicles); Chattanooga, Tennessee | |
| 83 FR 26255 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 49-Newark, New Jersey; Authorization of Production Activity; Movado Group, Inc. (Timepieces and Jewelry); Moonachie, New Jersey | |
| 83 FR 26256 - Foreign-Trade Zone 25-Broward County, Florida; Application for Reorganization and Expansion Under Alternative Site Framework | |
| 83 FR 26255 - Foreign-Trade Zone 38-Spartanburg County, South Carolina; Application for Subzone; Black & Decker, Inc.; Fort Mill, South Carolina | |
| 83 FR 26257 - Certain Steel Wheels From the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation | |
| 83 FR 26257 - Notice of Scope Rulings | |
| 83 FR 26258 - Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews | |
| 83 FR 26293 - Notice of Single Source Award Based on Non-Statutory Earmark to the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program | |
| 83 FR 26308 - Richard Hauser, M.D.; Decision and Order | |
| 83 FR 26210 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 | |
| 83 FR 26298 - Endangered Species; Recovery Permit Applications | |
| 83 FR 26303 - Two Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plans and Categorical Exclusions for Pacific Gas and Electric Company Gas Pipeline Vegetation Management, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, California | |
| 83 FR 26287 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company | |
| 83 FR 26304 - Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group; Request for Nominations | |
| 83 FR 26338 - New Jersey Transit Corporation-Acquisition Exemption-Consolidated Rail Corporation in the County of Middlesex, N.J. | |
| 83 FR 26312 - Pendency of Request for Exemption From the Bond/Escrow Requirement Relating to the Sale of Assets by an Employer Who Contributes to a Multiemployer Plan; Marlins Holdings LLC | |
| 83 FR 26279 - Cheniere Energy, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order | |
| 83 FR 26279 - Enable Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization | |
| 83 FR 26275 - Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity | |
| 83 FR 26277 - Sunshine Act Meeting Notice, Notice of Vote, Explanation of Action Closing Meeting and List of Persons to Attend | |
| 83 FR 26310 - Entergy Operations, Inc.; River Bend Station, Unit 1 | |
| 83 FR 26286 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Announcement of Board Approval Under Delegated Authority and Submission to OMB | |
| 83 FR 26204 - Unverified List (UVL); Correction | |
| 83 FR 26337 - Presidential Declaration of a Major Disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Maine | |
| 83 FR 26255 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee | |
| 83 FR 26327 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE American LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.37E and Rule 7.45E With Respect to NYSE National's Reopening of Trading and Reactivating Connection to the Securities Information Processors | |
| 83 FR 26335 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.37 and Rule 17 With Respect to NYSE National's Reopening of Trading and Reactivating Connection to the Securities Information Processors | |
| 83 FR 26331 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Listed Company Manual for Special Purpose Acquisition Companies To Lower the Initial Holders Requirement From 300 to 150 Round Lot Holders and To Eliminate Completely the 300 Public Stockholders Continued Listing Requirement, To Require at Least $5 Million in Net Tangible Assets for Initial and Continued Listing, and To Impose a 30-Day Deadline To Demonstrate Compliance With Certain Initial Listing Requirements Following a Business Combination | |
| 83 FR 26329 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 7.37-E and Rule 7.45-E With Respect to NYSE National's Reopening of Trading and Reactivating Connection to the Securities Information Processors | |
| 83 FR 26314 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Co-Location Services and Fees In Connection With the Re-Launch of Trading on the Exchange and To Amend Its Schedule of Fees and Rebates To Provide for Such Co-Location Services | |
| 83 FR 26332 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE National, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Establish the NYSE National BBO, NYSE National Trades and NYSE National Integrated Feed Market Data Feeds | |
| 83 FR 26278 - Combined Notice of Filings | |
| 83 FR 26280 - Combined Notice of Filings #2 | |
| 83 FR 26276 - Combined Notice of Filings #1 | |
| 83 FR 26269 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0033, Notification of Pending Legal Proceedings | |
| 83 FR 26267 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Bluefish Fishery; Scoping Process | |
| 83 FR 26295 - Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations | |
| 83 FR 26295 - Hawaii; Major Disaster and Related Determinations | |
| 83 FR 26311 - Information Collection Request; Submission for OMB Review | |
| 83 FR 26279 - Notice of Institution of Section 206 Proceeding and Refund Effective Date; Moxie Freedom LLC | |
| 83 FR 26277 - Notice Establishing Comment Period; Atmos Pipeline-Texas | |
| 83 FR 26277 - Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment; Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC | |
| 83 FR 26306 - Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Resin From Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan; Scheduling of the Final Phase of Anti-Dumping Duty Investigations | |
| 83 FR 26338 - Hazardous Materials Safety: International Standards on the Transport of Dangerous Goods | |
| 83 FR 26286 - Notice of Termination of Receiverships | |
| 83 FR 26313 - New Postal Product | |
| 83 FR 26294 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 26294 - National Eye Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting | |
| 83 FR 26294 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings | |
| 83 FR 26294 - Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting | |
| 83 FR 26284 - Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau Seeks Comment on Interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in Light of the D.C. Circuit's ACA International Decision | |
| 83 FR 26289 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations | |
| 83 FR 26212 - Higher Volume Port Area-State of Washington | |
| 83 FR 26229 - Statutory Cable, Satellite, and DART License Reporting Practices | |
| 83 FR 26203 - Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Van Nuys, CA | |
| 83 FR 26226 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Flight Envelope Protection | |
| 83 FR 26225 - Special Conditions: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. (BHTI), Model 525 Helicopters; Control Margin Awareness | |
| 83 FR 26228 - Resubmission of Petition To Mandate a Uniform Labeling Method for Traction of Floor Coverings, Floor Coverings With Coatings, and Treated Floor Coverings; Request for Comments | |
| 83 FR 26281 - Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Information Collection Request for the Underground Injection Control Program | |
| 83 FR 26221 - Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; PA; Emissions Statement Requirement for the 2008 Ozone Standard | |
| 83 FR 26237 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Yellowfin Sole Management in the Groundfish Fisheries of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands | |
| 83 FR 26206 - Safety Standard for Non-Full-Size Baby Cribs | |
| 83 FR 26229 - FM Translator Interference | |
| 83 FR 26222 - Approval of California Air Plan Revisions; Butte County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits |
Issue
Forest Service
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Copyright Office, Library of Congress
Federal Aviation Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, technical amendment.
This action removes the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part-time status from the legal description of the Class E airspace area designated as an extension at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA, and adds NOTAM part-time status information to Class E surface area airspace. These actions bring the airspace descriptions in line with the airspace hours listed in the applicable Chart Supplement. Also, an editorial change is made to the Class D airspace legal description replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.
Effective 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
Richard Farnsworth, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-2244.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends NOTAM part-time information for Class D and E airspace to ensure the efficient use of airspace at Van Nuys Airport.
The FAA Aeronautical Information Services branch found the Class E airspace designated as an extension at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA, as published in FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not require part time status. In addition, NOTAM part-time status is required for Van Nuys Airport in Class E surface area airspace. Also, an editorial change is made to the Class D airspace legal description replacing Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement.
Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, 6002, 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by eliminating the following language from the legal description of Class E airspace designated as an extension at Van Nuys Airport, Van Nuys, CA, “This Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory”.
This action also would add NOTAM part-time status information to the regulatory text in Class E surface area airspace for Van Nuys Airport. This brings the airspace descriptions published in the Order in line with the airspace hours listed in the Chart Supplement.
Lastly, this action replaces the outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the Class D airspace legal description.
This is an administrative change and does not affect the boundaries, altitudes, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is unnecessary.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”, paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to but not including 3,000 feet within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport, excluding that airspace within the Bob Hope Airport, CA, Class C airspace area, and excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile radius of Whiteman Airport, CA. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.2 miles each side of the Van Nuys VOR/DME 350° radial, extending from the 4.3-mile radius of Van Nuys Airport to 8.3 miles north of the Van Nuys VOR, excluding that airspace within the Whiteman, CA, Class D airspace area.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Final rule; correcting amendments.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by correcting one (1) address for one (1) person listed on the Unverified List (UVL) and removing an extraneous name from one (1) other entry listed on the UVL. These omissions were inadvertent and failure to correct them would cause confusion and possibly compromise national security.
Kevin Kurland, Director, Office of Enforcement Analysis, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-4255 or by email at
On May 17, 2018, the Bureau of Industry and Security published a rule entitled “Revisions to the Unverified List (UVL)” in the
Shipments (1) removed from license exception eligibility or that are now subject to requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR as a result of this regulatory action; (2) eligible for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license before this regulatory action; and (3) on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on June 6, 2018, pursuant to actual orders, may proceed to that UVL listed person under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as the items have been exported from the United States, reexported or transferred (in-country) before July 6, 2018. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight on July 6, 2018 are subject to the requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR in accordance with this regulation.
Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, has been in lapse. However, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8,
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
2. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable to this rule because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by requiring a license or, where no license is required, a UVL statement for items being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) involving a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the entities whose addresses are being corrected by this action would potentially be able to receive items without additional oversight by BIS and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to amend their current entry on the UVL, and create an incentive for these persons to accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR in furtherance of activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and/or take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing once a final rule was published.
Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
4. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4601
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Direct final rule.
In accordance with section 104(b) of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA), also known as the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), in December 2010, published a consumer product safety standard for non-full-size baby cribs (NFS cribs). The standard incorporated by reference the applicable ASTM voluntary standard, with several modifications. The CPSIA sets forth a process for updating standards that the Commission has issued under the authority of section 104(b) of the CPSIA. In accordance with that process, we are publishing this direct final rule, revising the CPSC's standard for NFS cribs to incorporate by reference a more recent version of the applicable ASTM standard.
The rule is effective on September 10, 2018, unless we receive significant adverse comment by July 6, 2018. If we receive timely significant adverse comments, we will publish notification in the
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0075, by any of the following methods:
Justin Jirgl, Compliance Officer, Office of Compliance and Field Operations, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814-4408; telephone: 301-504-7814; email:
Section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA, also known as the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act, requires the Commission to promulgate consumer product safety standards for durable infant or toddler products. The law requires that these standards are to be “substantially the same as” applicable voluntary standards or more stringent than the voluntary standards if the Commission concludes that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
The CPSIA also sets forth a process for updating CPSC's durable infant or toddler standards when the voluntary standard upon which the CPSC standard was based is changed. Section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA provides that if an organization revises a standard that has been adopted, in whole or in part, as a consumer product safety standard under this subsection, it shall notify the Commission. In addition, the revised voluntary standard shall be considered to be a consumer product safety standard issued by the Commission under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058), effective 180 days after the date on which the organization notifies the Commission (or such later date specified by the Commission in the
Section 104(c) of the CPSIA treated cribs differently than other products covered by section 104. Section 104(c) of the CPSIA stated that the standards for full-size and NFS cribs would apply to persons (such as those owning or operating child care facilities and places of public accommodation) in addition to persons usually subject to consumer product safety rules.
(A) manufactures, distributes in commerce, or contracts to sell cribs;
(B) based on the person's occupation, holds itself out as having knowledge of skill peculiar to cribs, including child care facilities and family child care homes;
(C) is in the business of contracting to sell or resell, lease, sublet, or otherwise place cribs in the stream of commerce; or
(D) owns or operates a place of accommodation affecting commerce (as defined in section 4 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2203) applied without regard to the phrase “not owned by the Federal Government”).
• Excluded a requirement to retighten screws and bolts between the crib side latch test and the mattress support vertical impact test (Section 6.1 of ASTM F406-10a; 16 CFR 1220.2(b)(3) of the CPSC standard);
• Clarified how to conduct the spindle/slat static force test with a crib that has folding or movable sides (Section 8.10.1 of ASTM F406-10a; 16 CFR 1220.2(b)(5) of the CPSC standard);
• Revised a warning to replace the words “play yard” with the word “product” (Section 9.4.2.6 of ASTM F406-10a; 16 CFR 1220(b)(12) of the CPSC standard); and
• Removed the provisions that relate only to play yards (1220.2(b)(1), (2), (4), and (6) through (11) of the CPSC standard).
On August 12, 2011, in Public Law No. 112-28, Congress amended section 104 and specifically addressed the revision of the crib standards, stating that any revision of the crib standards
Although ASTM F406 covers both NFS cribs and play yards, because section 104 has provisions that are specific to cribs, the CPSC created separate standards for NFS cribs and play yards. The safety standard for NFS cribs is set forth in 16 CFR part 1220. The safety standard for play yards is set forth in 16 CFR part 1221. Full-size cribs are addressed in a separate standard that references ASTM F1169-10 (16 CFR part 1219). The CPSC standard for NFS cribs does not apply to play yards, which are mesh or fabric-sided products, and the play yard-specific requirements are expressly excluded from the NFS crib standard.
On March 14, 2018, ASTM officially notified the CPSC that ASTM has published a revised 2017 version of ASTM F406 in a standard approved on December 1, 2017, ASTM F406-17,
ASTM has published nine revisions to ASTM F406 since publication of ASTM F406-10a. Three of the nine revisions of ASTM F406 affected the requirements for play yards but did not affect the voluntary standard for NFS cribs.
ASTM F406-10b, approved and published in December 2010, revised ASTM F406-10a. ASTM F406-10b made two significant revisions:
• Section 8.10.1—changed provisions on spindles and slats to require that each foldable and moveable side be tested separately. This change harmonized ASTM F406 with 16 CFR 1220.2(b)(5).
• Section 9.4.2.6, changed the language in the required warning from “play yard” to “product,” which harmonized ASTM F406 with 16 CFR 1220.2(b)(12).
Previously, when it published the CPSC standard for NFS cribs in 2010, the Commission concluded that these changes would be more stringent than the voluntary standard and would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product. Accordingly, the Commission finds that these revisions, which remain unchanged in the ASTM F406-17, would improve the safety of NFS cribs.
ASTM F406-11a, approved on July 1, 2011, and published in September 2011, contained two changes to definitions that affected NFS cribs, but did not affect the safety of these products.
• The definition of “non-full-size crib” was modified to clarify that the two dimensions referred to a length and width, rather than two lengths.
• The word “dropside” was removed from “dropside/drop gate,” and the definition was modified to define “drop gates” as telescoping or pivoting, rather than sliding or pivoting.
Because both changes are clarifications, the Commission considers them to be neutral changes regarding safety.
ASTM F406-12, approved on January 15, 2012, and published in February 2012, contained one change applicable to NFS cribs.
• The definition of “dropgate” was modified to remove the word “telescope,” because drop gates are products that pivot, while a telescoping side would be covered under the definition of “movable side”.
This clarification is a neutral change regarding safety.
ASTM F406-13, approved on May 1, 2013, and published in May 2013, contained the following changes affecting NFS cribs:
• Section 5.8.3.3—clarified that removing the mattress is considered one of the two required actions for the release of a “double-action locking or latching device” located under the mattress. The Commission agrees that removing the mattress is an appropriate action and finds this is a neutral change regarding safety.
• Section 5.9.2—provided an exemption for any “openings in the surface of a mattress support made of a rigid material” that are designed to prevent the entrapment of fingers, toes, hands, or feet if the occupant can readily move, lift, or fold the mattress to expose the opening. Specifically, rigid products,
• Section 5.15—
• Section 5.19—the section on key structural elements, was moved to section 6.18. This a neutral change regarding safety.
• Section 8.26.3—
• Section 6.18—now contains the provision for NFS cribs previously in section 5.19. This is a neutral change regarding safety.
ASTM F406-15, approved on November 1, 2015, and published in December 2015, contained the following changes affecting NFS cribs:
• Section 5.15—
• Section 8.17.4—Minor clarifications were made in the product stability test regarding placement of the stability test device. This is a neutral change regarding safety.
• Section 8.26—
○ First, a new method was added to determine the opening for cantilevered accessories (sections 8.26.1.1 and 8.26.1.2) that should be tested for entrapment. The text in section 8.26.1 specifies that the test methods are “performed when accessories are secured to the non-full size crib/play yard”; therefore, the test method for cantilevered accessories is applied to NFS cribs. (Although the test method in 8.26.1.1 identifies the “play yard top rail” in the test reference, instead of both NFS cribs and play yards, this editorial error will be addressed by ASTM).
○ Second, requirements were added to evaluate the small and large head probes used in identified openings (section 8.2.5.2.1).
The Commission considers these changes a safety improvement for NFS cribs because all openings in cantilevered accessories are tested for entrapment.
• Section 9.4.2.11—added flexibility to the instructions to allow cribs intended for use in child care facilities to substitute the warning, “Child in crib must be under supervision at all times,” in lieu of “Always provide the supervision necessary for the continued safety of your child. When used for playing, never leave child unattended.” Although CPSC believes that the original warning language is adequate, the substitute language may be appropriate in a child care facility where continued supervision is necessary and expected. The Commission considers this is a neutral change regarding safety.
The current version of ASTM F406, ASTM F406-17, was approved in December 2017, and published in January 2018. On March 14, 2018, ASTM notified the Commission that ASTM F406 had been revised with a 2017 version for NFS cribs, ASTM F406-17. ASTM F406-17 incorporates all the changes discussed above, with one additional change.
• Section 6.10, which allowed for retightening of screws and bolts during testing, was removed. The removal of section 6.10 harmonized ASTM F406 with 16 CFR 1220.2(b)(3).
Because the Commission previously concluded in 2010, when it published the CPSC standard for NFS cribs, that this change would be more stringent than the voluntary standard and would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product, the Commission considers this change an improvement to the safety of NFS cribs.
As discussed above, the NFS crib standard shares a voluntary standard with play yards. Accordingly, when the CPSC standard was issued in 2010, 16 CFR 1220.2(b) excluded the provisions of ASTM F406-10a that applied only to play yards. Specifically, the CPSC standard excluded:
• Sections 5.6.2 through 5.6.2.4 (top rail testing for scissoring, shearing, pinching);
• Section 5.16.2 (mattress filling materials for play yards);
• Section 7 (performance requirements for mesh/fabric products);
• Sections 8.11 through 8.11.2.4 (test method for mesh/fabric products);
• Sections 8.12 through 8.12.2.2 (floor strength test for mesh/fabric products);
• Sections 8.14 through 8.14.2 (mesh opening test);
• Sections 8.15 through 8.15.3.3 (test for strength of mesh and integrity of attachments);
• Sections 8.16 through 8.16.3 (mesh/fabric attachment strength test method); and
• Sections 9.3.2 through 9.3.2.4 (mesh drop top rails warning requirements). These sections have been retained in the ASTM F406-17 standard.
Since 2010, seven of the nine revisions to ASTM F406 added or modified play yard-specific requirements and associated test methods. Accordingly, the Commission is excluding all of the provisions that are play yard-specific in ASTM 406-17 from the updated CPSC standard. In addition, several new sections apply only to play yards. The revised CPSC standard that incorporates ASTM F406-17 excludes these provisions regarding play yard test methods:
• Section 5.19 (bassinet/cradle accessories);
• Sections 8.28 through 8.28.4 (mattress vertical displacement test);
• Sections 8.29 through 8.29.3 (top rail configuration test);
• Sections 8.30 through 8.30.5 (top rail to corner post attachment test); and
• Sections 8.31 through 8.31.9 (bassinet and cradle accessory).
In accordance with section 104(b)(4) of the CPSIA, the revised ASTM standard for NFS cribs becomes the new CPSC standard 180 days after the date the CPSC received notification of the revision from ASTM. This rule revises the incorporation by reference in 16 CFR part 1220, to reference ASTM F406-17, for NFS cribs, except for the provisions of ASTM F406-17 that apply to play yards.
The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations concerning incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble to the final rule, ways that the materials the agency incorporates by reference are reasonably available to interested persons and how interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR's requirements, section B of this preamble summarizes the major provisions of ASTM F406-17 standard that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1220. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties, and interested parties may purchase a copy of the standard from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA; phone: 610-832-9585;
Section 14(a) of the CPSA requires that products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, be certified as complying with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program, or, for children's products, on tests on a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment
Because NFS cribs are children's products, samples of these products must be tested by a third party conformity assessment body whose accreditation has been accepted by the Commission. These products also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements in section 101 of the CPSIA, the phthalates prohibitions in section 108 of the CPSIA, the tracking label requirement in section 14(a)(5) of the CPSA, and the consumer registration form requirements in the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act.
In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the CPSA, the Commission has previously published a notice of requirements (NOR) for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing NFS cribs (73 FR 62965 (Oct. 22, 2008)). The NOR provided the criteria and process for our acceptance of accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing NFS cribs to 16 CFR part 1220 (which incorporated ASTM F406-10a with several modifications). The NOR is listed in the Commission's rule, “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies.” 16 CFR part 1112.
Most of the revisions clarify the existing standard and will use existing test methods with minor adjustments, with only one new test for cantilevered accessories. This test uses previously established test methods with existing probes, but adds a plumb line between the accessory and the product top rail to identify areas to be tested for entrapment. Accordingly, there is no significant change in the way that third party conformity assessment bodies test these products for compliance with the NFS crib standard. Laboratories would begin testing to the new standard when ASTM F406-17 goes into effect, and the existing accreditations that the Commission has accepted for testing to this standard previously would also cover testing to the revised standard. Therefore, the existing NOR for this standard will remain in place, and CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies are expected to update the scope of the testing laboratories' accreditation to reflect the revised standard in the normal course of renewing their accreditation.
The Commission is issuing this rule as a direct final rule. Although the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) generally requires notice and comment rulemaking, section 553 of the APA provides an exception when the agency, for good cause, finds that notice and public procedure are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The Commission concludes that when the Commission updates a reference to an ASTM standard that the Commission has incorporated by reference under section 104(b) of the CPSIA, notice and comment is not necessary.
Under the process set out in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when ASTM revises a standard that the Commission has previously incorporated by reference as a Commission standard for a durable infant or toddler product under section 104(b)(1)(b) of the CPSIA, that revision will become the new CPSC standard, unless the Commission determines that ASTM's revision does not improve the safety of the product. Thus, unless the Commission makes such a determination, the ASTM revision becomes CPSC's standard by operation of law. The Commission is allowing ASTM F406-17 to become CPSC's new standard. The purpose of this direct final rule is merely to update the reference in the Code of Federal Regulations so that it accurately reflects the version of the standard that takes effect by statute. Public comment will not impact the substantive changes to the standard or the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety standard under section 104(b) of the CPSIA. Under these circumstances, notice and comment is not necessary. In Recommendation 95-4, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) endorsed direct final rulemaking as an appropriate procedure to expedite promulgation of rules that are noncontroversial and that are not expected to generate significant adverse comment.
Unless we receive a significant adverse comment within 30 days, the rule will become effective on September 10, 2018. In accordance with ACUS's recommendation, the Commission considers a significant adverse comment to be one where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including an assertion challenging the rule's underlying premise or approach, or a claim that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without change.
Should the Commission receive a significant adverse comment, the Commission would withdraw this direct final rule. Depending on the comments and other circumstances, the Commission may then incorporate the adverse comment into a subsequent direct final rule or publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, providing an opportunity for public comment.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires that agencies review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA.
The NFS crib standard contains information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The revision made no changes to that section of the standard. Thus, the revision will not have any effect on the information collection requirements related to the standard.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
Section 26(a) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2075(a), provides that where a “consumer product safety standard under [the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)]” is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury, unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to the Commission for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances.
The Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act (at section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA) refers to the rules to be issued under that section as “consumer product safety standards,” thus, implying that the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA would apply. Therefore, a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA will invoke the preemptive effect of section 26(a) of the CPSA when it becomes effective.
Under the procedure set forth in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when a voluntary standard organization revises a standard upon which a consumer product safety standard issued under the Danny Keysar Child Product Safety Notification Act was based, the revision becomes the CPSC standard within 180 days of notification to the Commission, unless the Commission determines that the revision does not improve the safety of the product, or the Commission sets a later date in the
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Infants and children, Law enforcement, Safety, Toys.
For the reasons stated above, the Commission amends title 16 CFR chapter II as follows:
Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (August 14, 2008); Sec. 3, Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273 (August 12, 2011).
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each non-full-size baby crib shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F406-17,
(b) Comply with the ASTM F406-17 standard with the following exclusions:
(1) Do not comply with sections 5.6.2 through 5.6.2.4 of ASTM F406-17.
(2) Do not comply with section 5.16.2 of ASTM F406-17.
(3) Do not comply with sections 5.19 through 5.19.2.2 of ASTM F406-17.
(4) Do not comply with section 7,
(5) Do not comply with sections 8.11 through 8.11.2.4 of ASTM F406-17.
(6) Do not comply with sections 8.12 through 8.12.2.2. of ASTM F406-17.
(7) Do not comply with sections 8.14 through 8.14.2 of ASTM F406-17.
(8) Do not comply with sections 8.15 through 8.15.3.3. of ASTM F406-17.
(9) Do not comply with section 8.16 through 8.16.3 of ASTM F406-17.
(10) Do not comply with sections 8.28 through 8.28.4 of ASTM F406-17.
(11) Do not comply with sections 8.29 through 8.29.3 of ASTM F406-17.
(12) Do not comply with sections 8.30 through 8.30.5 of ASTM F406-17.
(13) Do not comply with section 8.31 through 8.31.9 of ASTM F406-17.
(14) Do not comply with section 9.3.2 through 9.3.2.4 of ASTM F406-17.
Department of the Navy, DoD.
Final rule.
The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS CHARLESTON (LCS 18) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.
This rule is effective June 6, 2018 and is applicable beginning May 24, 2018.
Lieutenant Commander Kyle Fralick, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave. SE, Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066, telephone number: 202-685-5040.
Pursuant to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 1605, the DoN amends 32 CFR part 706.
This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS CHARLESTON (LCS 18) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I paragraph 2 (a)(i), pertaining to the height of the forward masthead light above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(i), pertaining to the
Moreover, it has been determined, in accordance with 32 CFR parts 296 and 701, that publication of this amendment for public comment prior to adoption is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to public interest since it is based on technical findings that the placement of lights on this vessel in a manner differently from that prescribed herein will adversely affect the vessel's ability to perform its military functions.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Vessels.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the DoN amends part 706 of title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1605.
The additions read as follows:
15. * * *
16. * * *
27. * * *
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is redefining the boundaries of the existing higher volume port area in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, in Washington. This rulemaking is required to make the Code of Federal Regulations consistent with statute, and is related to the Coast Guard's maritime stewardship (environmental protection) mission.
This final rule is effective July 6, 2018.
Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0576, which is available at
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Christopher Friese, CG-MER-1, Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-1227, email
The purpose of this rule is to align the list of higher volume port areas (HVPAs) in 33 CFR 155.1020 with statutory changes made to the State of Washington's higher volume port area, the Washington HVPA. Section 316 of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (CGAA 2015) expanded the Washington HVPA.
This rule is issued in accordance with section 316 of the CGAA 2015. The legal basis to update the CFR is Title 33 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) section 1231 and 1321(j), which require the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to issue regulations necessary for implementing the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, and require the President to issue regulations mandating response plans and other measures to protect against oil and hazardous substance spills. The President's authority under 33 U.S.C. 1321(j) is delegated to the Secretary by Executive Order 12777, and the Secretary's authority is delegated to the Coast Guard by DHS Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(70), (73), and (80).
On October 15, 2010, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (CGAA 2010) directed the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to modify the definition of “higher volume port area” in 33 CFR 155.1020, to expand the Washington HVPA past Cape Flattery.
After the close of the NPRM comment period, the CGAA 2015 expanded the HVPA immediately without requiring rulemaking before the change took effect. The Coast Guard applies the requirements of the expanded HVPA of the CGAA 2015 and has done so since the effective date of the Act. Although rulemaking is not required to implement the statute, a conforming change to the CFR is still necessary to ensure the regulations align with the statute. In this final rule, the Coast Guard is making conforming changes and responding to public comments received on the proposed rule. In Section V of this preamble, we discuss the comments that we received and how we addressed them.
Oil or hazardous material pollution prevention regulations for U.S. and foreign vessels operating in U.S. waters, appear in Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR part 155. Those regulations require a vessel response plan (VRP) describing measures that the vessel owner or operator has taken or will take to mitigate or respond to an oil spill from the vessel. The VRP must demonstrate the vessel's ability, following a spill, to secure response resources within given time periods. These measures typically include the services of nearby response resources under a contract between the vessel's owner or operator and an oil spill removal organization (OSRO) that owns the response resources. The regulations provide for three different timeframes within which a combination of required response resources must arrive on the scene, which are described as Tiers 1, 2, and 3.
In 33 CFR part 155, subparts D (petroleum oil as cargo), F (animal fat or vegetable oil as cargo), G (non-petroleum oil as cargo), and J (petroleum oil as fuel or secondary cargo) all share the same definition of “higher volume port area.” Required response times are significantly reduced in HVPAs. For example, Tier 1 response times for an oil tanker within an HVPA are half of that required for the same vessel operating in open ocean. As defined in 33 CFR 155.1020, the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound, WA, constitute one of the 14 HVPAs designated around the country.
Since 1996, 33 CFR 155.1020 has defined the seaward boundary of the Washington HVPA as an arc 50 nautical miles seaward of the entrance to Port Angeles, WA. Port Angeles is approximately 62 nautical miles inland from the Pacific Ocean entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca, at Cape Flattery, WA, and therefore the Washington HVPA, as defined in 33 CFR 155.1020, did not include any Pacific Ocean waters. Section 710 of the CGAA 2010 required the Coast Guard to initiate a rulemaking to relocate the HVPA's arc so that it extended seaward from Cape Flattery, not Port Angeles. This added 50 nautical miles of Pacific Ocean water and an additional 12 nautical miles in the western portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
We received comments on our NPRM from five sources: An environmental group, two state environmental agencies, an Indian tribal council, and an individual resident of the region. These public comments could not anticipate the 2015 legislation that was enacted after the close of the comment period in August 2015, and which overwrote the 2010 legislation that prompted the Coast Guard to issue the NPRM. However, the Coast Guard addresses all the public comments here in order to improve clarity and foster better relationships with stakeholders.
The Coast Guard National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC) verifies OSRO capability through Preparedness Assessment Visits and response time calculations. The same method is used in classifying all OSROs. Two OSROs are currently classified for coverage in the HVPA. Vessel owners or operators need only reference the classified OSRO in their VRP. If an owner or operator chooses to use a non-classified OSRO, then they must list all the equipment and describe how they meet the requirements in appendix B to 33 CFR part 155. All VRPs receive the same detailed review for response adequacy to ensure the vessel's readiness for response in the geographic area it is operating.
We acknowledge the concerns of commenters with regard to reduced response capabilities throughout the HVPA. This rulemaking in no way reduces or changes any response requirements that currently exist. Implementation of the revised HVPA does not change the requirement of vessel owners and operators to identify classified OSROs or identify their own equipment sufficient to meet part 155 appendix B requirements. This is required in order for the vessel to receive an approved VRP necessary for operating in the HVPA.
We also acknowledge concerns about increased vessel transits and, it is implied, a higher likelihood of spills. VRPs are for response planning purposes. Consistent with the National Planning Criteria, they are evaluated using the worst-case discharge from a single vessel.
As described above, this rule makes no changes to the requirements for planholders or for classifying OSROs, so we do not anticipate a shift in implementation process. Through existing practices, the NSFCC confirms that classified OSROs meet their regulatory responsibilities. Owners or operators using non-classified OSROs must describe in their VRP how they meet appendix B requirements. Although we do not see a specific need for formal consultation with the State of Washington, the Thirteenth Coast Guard District maintains open lines of communication with the State. The Coast Guard will continue to work with its Federal, State, local, and tribal partners to ensure response readiness following publication of this final rule.
This rule is substantively unchanged from what we proposed in the NPRM. It expands the boundaries of the Washington HVPA in the CFR to make those boundaries consistent with section 316 of the CGAA 2015. The old definition of “higher volume port area” in 33 CFR 155.1020 includes any water area within 50 nautical miles seaward of the entrance to the Strait of Juan De Fuca at Port Angeles, WA to and including Cape Flattery, WA. In order to align the regulations with section 316 of the CGAA 2015, we are amending that definition by striking “Port Angeles, WA” and inserting “Cape Flattery, WA” in its place.
Port Angeles lies about 62 nautical miles east of the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca. By moving the arc so that it centers on Cape Flattery, which lies at the entrance to the Strait, the redefined Washington HVPA will cover an additional 50 nautical miles of Pacific Ocean water, while continuing to cover all the waters now included within the current HVPA. The larger Washington HVPA may affect the time and resources needed to respond to an oil spill from a vessel because it is harder and more time-consuming to transit rough Pacific Ocean waters than it is to transit the sheltered waters of the Strait and the Sound. We discuss these possibilities in more detail in the Regulatory Analyses section that follows.
This rule also makes two editorial changes in 33 CFR 155.1020. First, we correct the spelling of “Strait of Juan De Fuca” to “Strait of Juan de Fuca.” Second, we add a note to paragraph (13) of the definition of “higher volume port area” to highlight that the western boundary of the Washington HVPA in 33 CFR part 155 differs from that in 33 CFR part 154 for facilities transferring oil or hazardous materials in bulk. The difference stems from section 316 of the CGAA 2015 (Pub. L. 114-120) and the statutory language that specifically addresses the definition in 33 CFR part 155. The statutory expansion in the CGAA 2015 is not written to address 33 CFR part 154, and therefore 33 CFR subchapter O will contain two differing definitions of “higher volume port area” for the Straits of Juan de Fuca.
We developed this final rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to this rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or Executive orders.
Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs and provides that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. As this rule is not a significant regulatory action, this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See OMB's Memorandum “Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, Titled `Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'” (April 5, 2017). A regulatory analysis follows.
We received no public comments on the estimated costs of the proposed rule, nor did we receive any additional information or data that alters our assessment of the proposed rule. However, we received two public comments on the benefit analysis presented in the proposed rule regarding the same topic. We presented our full response to these two public comments in section V of this preamble. Because no casualty case mentioned in one of the comments would have benefited from the expanded HVPA, we also determined that our assessment of the benefits of the proposed rule remains unchanged. Therefore, we adopt the preliminary regulatory analysis for the proposed rule as final. A summary of that analysis follows.
This final rule is needed to conform Coast Guard regulations to the statutory changes made by section 316 of CGAA 2015. Currently, the CFR says the Washington HVPA boundary is
Part 155 of 33 CFR directly applies to and regulates vessel owners and operators. The final rule has the potential to impact vessel response planholders covering vessels that transit the Washington HVPA and OSROs that provide response resources in the event of an oil spill. Based on the Coast Guard's review of VRPs, two OSROs may be impacted by the final rule. One OSRO has about 500 response resource contracts and the other OSRO has about 650 contracts with planholders that own vessels that call on the expanded Washington HVPA. For the OSRO that has 500 contracts, about 3 percent or 15 of those contracts are with U.S. planholders; for the OSRO that has 650 contracts, about 2 percent or 13 of those contracts are with U.S. planholders.
Vessel owners and operators will not need to revise or modify a current VRP to take into account the expansion of the HVPA. Current VRPs already specify one or both of the OSROs that provide response resources to vessel owners and operators in the affected waters. Vessel owners and operators must only list the NSFCC-classified OSRO by name and include the contact information for each OSRO in the VRP; no other information or details regarding the geographic location of response equipment are required in the VRP.
In addition to identifying the OSRO in the VRP, vessel owners and operators must ensure the availability of response resources from the OSRO through a contract or other approved means. Depending on how the contract language is formulated, a contract may need to be modified to reflect the change in the HVPA geographical definition. For example, one OSRO provided information which stated that contracts will need to be modified slightly to incorporate the geographic change of the expanded HVPA, while the other OSRO provided information which stated that no changes or modifications to existing contracts are necessary on the part of either OSRO or the planholders. For the purpose of this analysis, we estimate costs to modify a contract for the planholders of the OSRO that stated that changes are necessary. This OSRO has about 500 planholders with written contractual agreements to secure response resource services in the event of an oil spill; of this amount, only about 3 percent or 15, are with U.S. planholders. Based on information we obtained from industry in formulating the Nontank Vessel Response Plan final rule (78 FR 60100), it will take a general and operations manager approximately 2 hours of planholder time to amend the contract and send the contract to the OSRO for approval. If a plan preparer amends the contract on behalf of the planholder, we estimate it will take the same amount of time. We found that 36 percent of planholders perform this work internally and 64 percent hire a plan preparer to perform this work on their behalf. The amendment of a contract is a one-time cost; we estimate little or no submission cost for planholders because nearly 100 percent of contracts are submitted by email to the responsible OSRO.
Accounting for planholders who perform the work internally and using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) May 2016 National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for General and Operations Manager (Occupation Code 11-1021), we obtain a mean hourly wage rate of $73.98. We then use BLS' 2016 Employer Cost for Employee Compensation databases to calculate and apply a load factor of 1.52 to obtain a loaded hourly labor rate of about $112.45 for this occupation.
The remaining 485 planholders are foreign. For 36 percent of them who will amend the contracts internally, we
The final category of potential costs relates to the OSROs' abilities to meet the specified response times in the new geographic area of the HVPA. Based on information provided to the Coast Guard, one OSRO stated that additional response equipment will not be required and capital expenditures will not be necessary as a result of the expanded HVPA under current Coast Guard OSRO classification guidelines. Based on data from the other OSRO, we estimate that total initial capital costs could be as high as $5.5 million for temporary storage equipment and warehousing with annual capital recurring costs of approximately $250,000 for equipment maintenance, and up to $1 million for barge recertification (included in the $5.5 million estimate), warehousing, and other necessary resource equipment. However, we lack independent methods to verify these estimates. Moreover, the actual costs the OSRO may incur depend considerably on how they choose to comply with our regulations, which give OSROs substantial flexibility with respect to pre-positioning response resources.
To the extent one OSRO will incur additional costs due to this final rule (such as increased capitalization costs), we expect that these costs are generally passed onto their VRP planholders equally, although the OSRO that provided this information conceded that this was speculative at this point due to the uncertainty of expenditures that may be needed as described below. Using the highest value of capital costs provided to us of $5.5 million, we use the capital recovery cost factor to determine the amount needed annually to recover this payout since we assume the OSRO will finance the expenditures and attempt to recapture them equally over the life of the equipment. The capital recovery factor (CRF), or ratio as it is often referred to, is the ratio of a constant annuity to the present value of the annuity over a given period of time using an acceptable discount rate, as in this case, 7 percent. The ratio also includes the general life expectancy of the investment and can be simply described as the “share of the net cost that must be recovered each year to `repay the cost of the fixed input at the end of its useful life.' ”
For all 28 U.S. planholders, we estimate the total initial-year cost is about $14,401 ($4,001 + $10,400), undiscounted. We estimate the total annual recurring cost is about $10,785 ($10,400 + $385), undiscounted (see Table 1 for further details).
It follows that the remaining 637 planholders are foreign. Again, if we assume this OSRO passes along its capital cost in the form of higher retainer fees to foreign planholders, we estimate the total capital cost of this final rule to foreign planholders is about $509,600 (637 × $800) annually, undiscounted, in addition to annual maintenance costs of about $245,000 (637 × $385), undiscounted, in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period. We estimate the total 10-year discounted cost to foreign planholders is about $3.6 million using a 7 percent discount rate (the 10-year discounted cost is estimated is about $4.3 million using a 3 percent discount rate). As stated earlier, we neither have knowledge of the OSROs billing structure nor how costs are distributed among planholders, although in our discussion with one OSRO, we learned that the composition of a planholder's vessel fleet affects the amount of the retainer fee because vessels such as nontank ships require different response resources as opposed to towing vessels, for example.
Table 1 summarizes the total estimated cost of the final rule to 28 U.S. planholders over a 10-year period of analysis.
As Table 1 shows, for 15 U.S. planholders who may need to revise their contracts, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost of the final rule is about $3,739 at a 7 percent discount rate (using a 3 percent discount rate, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost is about $3,884). We estimate the annualized cost is about $532 for these 15 planholders.
For the OSRO that may incur capital costs as a result of this final rule and pass these costs along to its 13 U.S. planholders, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost is about $75,390 at a 7 percent discount rate (using a 3 percent discount rate, we estimate the 10-year discounted cost is about $91,624). We estimate the annualized cost is about $10,734 at a 7 percent discount rate for these 13 planholders.
We estimate the total present discounted cost of the final rule to all 28 U.S. planholders about $79,129 at a 7 percent discount rate (using a 3 percent discount rate, is we estimate the total 10-year discounted cost is about $95,509). We estimate the annualized cost is about $11,266 at a 7 percent discount rate.
We do not anticipate that this final rule will impose new costs on the Coast Guard or require the Coast Guard to expend additional resources because we do not expect any changes are required to the VRPs of vessels in the HVPA.
Due to the specific nature of section 710(a) of the CGAA 2010 and section 316 of the CGAA 2015, we are limited in the alternative approaches we can use to comply with Congress' intent. We considered three alternatives (including the preferred alternative) in the development of the final rule: (1) Revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking “Port Angeles, WA” in the definition of “higher volume port area” of that section and inserting “Cape Flattery, WA”; (2) revise 33 CFR 155.1020 by striking “50 nautical miles” in the definition of “higher volume port area” and inserting “110 nautical miles”; and (3) take no action. The Regulatory Analyses section further discusses the analysis of the preferred alternative (
We considered three alternatives (including the preferred alternative) in the development of this final rule. The key factors that we evaluated in considering each alternative included: (1) The degree to which the alternative comported with the congressional mandate in section 710 of the CGAA 2010; (2) what benefits, if any, are derived, such as enhancement of personal and environmental safety and security; and (3) cost effectiveness. The alternatives considered are as follows:
We chose Alternative 1, which codifies the regulation directly and specifically implements section 316 of the CGAA 2015 as described earlier. We rejected Alternative 2, because it would result in different HVPA boundaries in regulation and statute and adds burden, both in the Puget Sound region and in the other HVPAs throughout the United States. We rejected Alternative 3, the “no action” alternative, because it would not implement section 316.
We did not identify any historic cases that could support the development of quantifiable benefits associated with this final rule. Using the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law
Qualitatively, oil spills are likely to result in a negative impact to the ecosystem and the economy of the surrounding area. These social welfare effects are not accounted for solely by the amount of oil spilled into the water. In many cases, the scope of the impact is contingent on the vulnerability and resiliency of the affected area. Due to the sensitivity or vulnerability of a location, a barrel of spilled oil may not have the same impact in one area as it would in another. Depending on the ecosystem, VRPs could mitigate impacts to habitats that house multiple species. An area with an ecosystem that is damaged as a result of previous environmental incidents or damaged due to the cumulative effects of environmental injuries over time can be expected to have higher benefits from oil spill mitigation.
The primary benefit of this final rule is to ensure that in the event of a spill, adequate response resources are available and can be mobilized within the expanded HVPA. This will ensure a timely response by vessel owners and operators and the OSROs in an effort to reduce the likelihood, and mitigate the impact of an oil spill on the marine environment that might occur in the expanded HVPA.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
Regarding vessel owners and operators, as previously discussed, this final rule will codify the requirements in the CGAA 2015 of an expanded HVPA, and it will not require vessel owners and operators to make changes to VRPs. Therefore, owners and operators of vessels that transit the HVPA will not incur additional VRP modification costs as a result of this final rule. However, as assumed earlier for the purpose of this analysis, if contracts would need to be modified, as stated by one OSRO on the part of the planholders, U.S. planholders will bear some costs of this final rule as shown earlier in the “Costs” portion of section VII. A. of this preamble. We estimate that each of the 15 U.S. planholders will incur an average one-time cost of about $267 to amend its contract with the OSRO.
Also, regarding capital costs, it is unclear whether or how these costs impact vessel owners and operators without knowledge of the OSROs' billing structures. Additionally, proprietary information is not available that would allow us to determine the distribution of costs among many vessel owners and operators contracting with each OSRO. Nevertheless, in our earlier analysis, if we assume capital costs are incurred by one of the OSROs and we assume this cost would be passed along equally to U.S. planholders in the form of higher retainer fees, we estimate each of the 13 U.S. planholders will incur an annual cost of about $800 from one particular OSRO in addition to $385 in maintenance costs in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period for a total planholder cost of about $1,185 in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period.
We assume for the purpose of this analysis that the two OSROs that provide response resource capabilities to the HVPA in Puget Sound may incur costs from this final rule and may likely pass along these costs to planholders in the form of higher retainer fees or planholders may incur one-time costs to amend their contracts with one of the OSROs. Using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes for businesses and the Small Business Administration's (SBA) size standards for small businesses, we determined the size of each OSRO. One OSRO has a primary NAICS code of 541618 with an SBA size standard of $15 million, which is under the subsector group 541 of the NAICS code with the description of “Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services.” The other OSRO has a primary NAICS code of 562998 with an SBA size standard of $7.5 million, which is under the subsector group 562 of the NAICS code with the description of “Waste Management and Remediation Services.” Based on the information discussed earlier in this section and annual revenue data from publicly available and proprietary sources, Manta and ReferenceUSA, neither OSRO is considered to be small.
There are about 1,400 U.S. planholders that have either a tank, nontank, or combined VRP. Based on the affected population of this final rule relative to the size of the industry as a whole, in this case U.S. VRP owners (planholders), this final rule will potentially affect 28 or about 2 percent of the total population of U.S. planholders in the United States. As described earlier and dependent upon the OSRO considered, we estimate a U.S. planholder may incur an annual cost between $385 and $1,185 in years 2 through 10 of the analysis period (and between $267 and $800 in the initial year because we assume maintenance costs are not incurred in the initial year of the analysis period) as a result of this final rule. Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This final rule will call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis is explained below.
As noted earlier in the preamble, this rule implements section 710 of the CGAA 2010, as amended by section 316 of the CGAA 2015, which specifically directs the Coast Guard to amend 33 CFR 155.1020 by removing “Port Angeles, WA” and replacing it with “Cape Flattery, WA.” This rule carries out the Congressional mandate by amending the regulations to reflect this required change. Furthermore, this rule does not appear to have a substantial direct effect upon the laws or regulations of the State of Washington. Additionally, nothing in this rule preempts or prohibits state removal activities related to the discharge of oil or hazardous substances under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This final rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 (Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights).
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks). This rule is not an economically significant rule and will not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We discuss Executive Order 13175 in more detail in section V of this preamble.
We have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.
We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD (COMDTINST M16475.1D), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
Alaska, Hazardous substances, Oil pollution, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 155 as follows:
3 U.S.C. 301 through 303; 33 U.S.C. 1225, 1231, 1321(j), 1903(b), 2735; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. Section 155.1020 also issued under section 316 of Pub. L. 114-120. Section 155.480 also issued under section 4110(b) of Pub. L. 101-380.
(13) * * *
The western boundary of the Strait of Juan de Fuca higher volume port area in this part differs from that in § 154.1020 of this chapter. The difference stems from section 316(b) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-120), which expands only the definition in this part.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This SIP revision fulfills Pennsylvania's emissions statement requirement for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
This final rule is effective on July 6, 2018.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0739. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Maria A. Pino, (215) 814-2181, or by email at
On March 12, 2018 (83 FR 10650), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In the NPR, EPA proposed approval of Pennsylvania's certification that Pennsylvania's SIP-approved emissions statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The formal SIP revision was submitted by Pennsylvania, through the Pennsylvania Department of the Environmental Protection (PADEP), on November 3, 2017.
In Pennsylvania's November 3, 2017 SIP revision submittal, Pennsylvania states that the existing, SIP-approved rule found at 25 Pa. Code 135.21, “Emissions Statements,” satisfies CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B), states are required to have an emission statements rule for ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, states in the ozone transport region are required to have an emission statement rule statewide, including for attainment areas.
EPA received twenty-three public comments on our March 12, 2018 NPR proposing to approve Pennsylvania's November 3, 2017 submittal. All comments received were not specific to this action, and thus are not addressed here.
EPA is approving the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's November 3, 2017 SIP revision submittal, which addresses the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS emissions statement requirement, as a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866.
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 6, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action, approving Pennsylvania's certification that its SIP-approved emissions statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve a revision to the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the District's New Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution. We are approving a local rule under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).
This rule will be effective on July 6, 2018.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0120. All documents in the docket are listed on the
T. Khoi Nguyen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120,
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On March 23, 2018, the EPA proposed an approval of Rule 432—Federal New Source Review (FNSR), as noted in Table 1, submitted by the California Air
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it complies with the relevant CAA requirements. The rule was amended to correct a previously identified deficiency from the limited disapproval of the rule on December 22, 2016. 81 FR 93820. The deficiency identified in the limited disapproval was that ammonia was not regulated as a PM
The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received six comments. However, none of the comments were relevant to the proposed action. The comments have been added to the docket for this action and are accessible at
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the BCAQMD rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available through
Under the CAA, the EPA Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 6, 2018. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(457) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(
(504) The following amended regulations were submitted on June 12, 2017, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Butte County Air Quality Management District.
(
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS) in the area of pilot awareness of the control margins remaining while maneuvering the helicopter. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before July 23, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2017-1128] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
George Harrum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-4087; email
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The Model 525 is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,500 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 19 passengers and a crew of 2.
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a four-axis full authority digital FBW FCS that provides for aircraft control through pilot input and coupled flight director modes. The current 14 CFR part 29 regulations do not contain adequate standards for FBW FCS with respect to control margin awareness. The airworthiness standards for controllability and maneuverability of the rotorcraft are contained in § 29.143. These controllability requirements are compatible with most FBW systems, while most of the maneuverability requirements are not affected by FBW systems, except for the control margins. One of the purposes of the rule is to ensure that control margins (at the rotor and the anti-torque system level) are sufficient in the defined flight envelope to avoid loss of control (that is, the rotorcraft has adequate control power for the pilot to exit potentially hazardous flight conditions). Implicit in this purpose is that the pilot is provided with sufficient awareness of proximity to control limits. Because § 29.143 was written to address hydro-mechanical flight control systems, through which pilot awareness of control margins is provided by cyclic and pedal position relative to cockpit control stops, the rule is inadequate for certification of a FBW FCS, where there is no mechanical link between the inceptor and the receptor. Without a constant correlation between cockpit control and main or tail rotor actuator positions, the FCS may not provide tactile control margin feedback to the pilot through cockpit control position relative to the control position physical stop or limit, for all flight conditions. The proposed special conditions will require the minimum safety standard to ensure awareness of proximity to control limits at the main rotor and tail rotor is provided to pilots of the Bell Model 525 helicopter.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendment 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 31,
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: A four-axis full authority digital FBW FCS. Pilot control inputs, through the mechanically linked cockpit controls (cyclic, collective, directional pedals), are transmitted electrically to each of the three Flight Control Computers (FCCs). The pilot control input signals are then processed and transmitted to the hydraulic flight control actuators which affect control of the main and tail rotors.
The proposed special condition will require the minimum safety standard to ensure awareness of proximity to control limits at the main rotor and tail rotor is provided to pilots of the Bell Model 525 helicopter. The system design must provide the pilot with sufficient awareness of proximity to control limits, traditionally achieved through conventional flight controls by the pilot's inherent awareness of cyclic stick and pedal position relative to control stops.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters:
In addition to the existing § 29.143 requirements, the following special condition applies: The system design must ensure that the flight crew is made suitably aware whenever the means of primary flight control approaches the limits of control authority. For the context of this special condition, the term “suitable” indicates an appropriate balance between nuisance and necessary operation.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This action proposes special conditions for the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. This helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with fly-by-wire flight control system (FBW FCS) flight envelope protection. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Send your comments on or before July 23, 2018.
Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2017-1127] using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
George Harrum, Aerospace Engineer,
We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.
On December 15, 2011, BHTI applied for a type certificate for a new transport category helicopter designated as the Model 525. The Model 525 is a medium twin-engine rotorcraft. The design maximum takeoff weight is 20,500 pounds, with a maximum capacity of 19 passengers and a crew of 2.
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will be equipped with a four axis full authority digital FBW FCS that provides for aircraft control through pilot input and coupled flight director modes. The FBW FCS will contain an advanced flight control system that will alter the nominal flight control laws to ensure that the aircraft remains in a predetermined flight envelope. These Flight Envelope Protection (FEP) features prevent the pilot or autopilot functions from making control commands that would force the aircraft to exceed its structural, aerodynamic, or operating limits. The design and construction standards, specifically 14 CFR 29.779(a), require that movement of the flight controls results in a corresponding sense of aircraft motion in the same axis. The airworthiness standards for an automatic pilot system in § 29.1329 covers design requirements for basic operation of the system but does not address dynamic flight envelope limitations imposed by the automatic pilot system. Currently there are no specific airworthiness requirements that address FBW FCS FEP in rotorcraft. The proposed special conditions will require the minimum safety standard for the FEP features.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, BHTI must show that the Model 525 helicopter meets the applicable provisions of part 29, as amended by Amendment 29-1 through 29-55 thereto. The BHTI Model 525 certification basis date is December 31, 2013, the effective date of application to the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the BHTI Model 525 helicopter must comply with the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The BHTI Model 525 helicopter will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: FBW FCS incorporating FEP features. FEP is used to prevent the pilot or an autopilot from making control commands that would force the rotorcraft to exceed its structural, aerodynamic, or operating limits. To accomplish this envelope limiting, the FCS control laws change as the limit is approached or exceeded.
The proposed special conditions will require the minimum safety standard for the flight envelope protection features. The FEP features must meet requirements for handling qualities, compatibility of flight parameter limit values, response to dynamic maneuvering, and failure modes.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the BHTI Model 525 helicopter. Should BHTI apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of rotorcraft. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 525 helicopters:
The Flight Envelope Protection (FEP) features of the FCS must meet the following requirements:
a. Onset characteristics of each envelope protection feature must be smooth, appropriate to the phase of flight and type of maneuver, and not in conflict with the ability of the pilot to satisfactorily change rotorcraft flight path, speed, or attitude within the approved flight envelope.
b. Limit values of protected flight parameters (and if applicable, associated warning thresholds) must be compatible with:
1. Rotorcraft structural limits;
2. Safe and controllable maneuvering of the rotorcraft;
3. Margins to critical conditions. Dynamic maneuvering, airframe and system tolerances (both manufacturing and in-service), and non-steady atmospheric conditions—in any appropriate combination and phase of flight—must not result in a limited flight parameter beyond the nominal design limit value that would cause unsafe flight characteristics;
4. Rotor rotational speed limits;
5. Blade stall limits; and
6. Engine and transmission torque limits.
c. The aircraft must be responsive to pilot-commanded dynamic maneuvering within a suitable range of the parameter limits that define the approved flight envelope.
d. The FEP system must not create unusual or adverse flight characteristics when atmospheric conditions or unintentional pilot action causes the
e. When simultaneous envelope limiting is active, adverse coupling or adverse priority must not result.
f. Following a single FEP failure shown to not be extremely improbable, the rotorcraft must:
1. Be capable of continued safe flight and landing;
2. Be capable of initial counteraction of malfunctions without requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength;
3. Be controllable and maneuverable when operated with a degraded FCS, within a practical flight envelope identified in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual;
4. Be capable of prolonged instrument flight without requiring exceptional pilot skill;
5. Meet the controllability and maneuverability requirements of 14 CFR part 29 Subpart B throughout a practical flight envelope; and
6. Be safely controllable following any additional failure or malfunction shown to not be extremely improbable occurring within the approved flight envelope.
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notification of petition for rulemaking.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) received a resubmitted petition from the National Floor Safety Institute (petitioner or NFSI), requesting that the agency require manufacturers of floor coverings and coatings to label their products and provide point of purchase information regarding slip-resistance, using the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B101.5-2014
Submit comments by August 6, 2018.
Submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2018-0014, by any of the following methods:
Rocky Hammond, Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: 301-504-6833; email:
On April 19, 2018, NFSI submitted a petition, docketed as CP 18-2, requesting that the Commission require manufacturers of floor coverings and coatings to label their products, and provide point-of-purchase information regarding slip-resistance, using the ANSI B101.5 voluntary standard. NFSI's petition request is a resubmission of a prior petition (CP 16-1), which the Commission voted to deny.
As with the previous petition, NFSI states that it seeks to reduce injuries and fatalities related to consumer slips and falls, particularly involving the elderly, by requesting CPSC to mandate that floor coverings for sale to consumers be labeled to provide information about the traction of each product. NFSI states that different types of floor coverings have wide ranging differences in slip-resistance, which can make certain types of flooring inappropropriate for a specific use. NFSI contends that currently, consumers have no uniform information to compare differences in traction with various floor covering options. NFSI states that the labeling it urges is easy to understand and will benefit consumers, particularly the elderly, by informing consumers of the traction or safety of the products at the point of sale.
Responding to commenters' and the Commission's concerns regarding the previous petition (CP 16-1), NFSI made modifications to the current petition request and provided additional information to support its petition for rulemaking. By this notice, the Commission seeks comments concerning this renewed petition, including whether the modifications and additional information provided by NFSI address the concerns set forth in the Commission's January 19, 2017 letter to NFSI denying petition CP 16-1.
The petition is available at:
U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
The United States Copyright Office is extending the deadlines for the submission of written comments in response to its December 1, 2017 notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the royalty reporting practices of cable operators under section 111 and proposed revisions to the Statement of Account forms, and on proposed amendments to the Statement of Account filing requirements.
The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 1, 2017 (82 FR 56926), which was extended on December 27, 2017 (82 FR 61200) and further extended on March 8, 2018 (83 FR 9824), is again extended. Initial written comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on October 4, 2018. Written reply comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on October 25, 2018.
For reasons of government efficiency, the Copyright Office is using the
Regan A. Smith, General Counsel and Associate Register of Copyrights, by email at
On December 1, 2017, the Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”) on proposed rules governing the royalty reporting practices of cable operators under section 111 and proposed revisions to the Statement of Account forms, and on proposed amendments to the Statement of Account filing requirements.
On December 13, 2017, NCTA—The Internet & Television Association submitted a motion seeking to extend the initial comment period until March 16, 2018, with written reply comments due by April 2, 2018.
On May 29, 2018, Program Suppliers submitted a motion seeking to extend the initial comment period until October 4, 2018, with written reply comments due by October 25, 2018 (“2018 Extension Request”).
To ensure that current remitters and other stakeholders have sufficient time to try and reach consensus on some or all of the issues raised in the NPRM, the Office is extending the deadline for the submission of initial written comments to 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on October 4, 2018. Written reply comments must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on October 25, 2018.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Commission discusses several proposals designed to streamline the rules relating to interference caused by FM translators and expedite the translator complaint resolution process, based in part upon the petitions for rulemaking filed by the National Association of Broadcasters and Aztec Capital Partners, Inc.
Comments may be filed on or before July 6, 2018 and reply comments may be filed on or before August 6, 2018. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before August 6, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 18-119, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Albert Shuldiner, Chief, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-2721; Christine Goepp, Media Bureau, Audio Division, (202) 418-7834. Direct press inquiries to Janice Wise at (202) 418-8165. For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) information collection
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 18-119, FCC 18-60, adopted and released May 10, 2018. The full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) website at
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) contains proposed information collection requirements subject to the PRA, Public Law 104-13. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed new and modified information collection requirements contained in this NPRM.
Comments on the proposed information collection requirements should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act comments on the information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Cathy Williams, via the internet to
To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the web page
The proposed information collections are as follows:
The rule changes proposed in the NPRM would, if adopted, potentially increase the number of listener complaints that must be included with an interference claim to a minimum of six, and increase the amount of information to be included with each listener complaint to include signed listener statements regarding listening regularity and non-affiliation with the complaining station. In the NPRM, the Commission is seeking comment on its proposal to specify and clarify the information that must be contained in each listener interference complaint, thus potentially reducing lengthy and resource-intensive disputes over a listener's bona fides. To discourage the filing of poorly substantiated claims, the Commission is proposing to require that a minimum number of listener complaints be submitted with each translator interference claim and that listener complaints beyond a certain contour would not be actionable. Finally, the Commission is seeking comment on streamlining the interference resolution process by applying technical data, rather than relying on listener involvement, to demonstrate resolution of properly documented, bona fide listener complaints. Under this new information collection, the following information collection requirements require OMB approval.
The Commission proposes to amend §§ 74.1203(a)(3) (actual interference) and 74.1204(f) (predicted interference) of the rules to state that interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a regularly used signal by six or more listeners, at separate locations using separate receivers, is impaired or is predicted to be impaired,
The Commission also proposes to codify the § 74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1204(f) listener complaint requirements in § 74.1201(k). All listener complaints, whether submitted under § 74.1203(a)(3) or § 74.1204(f), must be signed by the listener and contain the following: (1) Full name and contact information; (2) a clear, concise, and accurate description of the location where the interference is alleged to occur; (3) to demonstrate that the complainant is a regular listener, a statement that the complainant listens to the desired station at least twice a month; and (4) to demonstrate that the complainant is disinterested, a statement that the complainant has no legal, financial, or familial affiliation with the desired station. In addition, stations submitting a translator interference claim pursuant to either § 74.1203(a)(3) or § 74.1204(f) must include a map plotting specific listener addresses in relation to the relevant station contours. Section 74.1204(f) complaints must also provide technical evidence of interference to the reception of the desired station at the listener locations specified, such as through U/D signal strength data.
Finally, in order to simplify and expedite the interference resolution process, the NPRM proposes to require that the FM translator operator, once interference has been initially established through bona fide listener complaints under either § 74.1203(a)(3) or § 74.1204(f), submit a technical showing that all interference has been eliminated. The NPRM proposes to require that this technical showing be based on the same U/D ratio methodology applicable to § 74.1204(f) complaints described above, in addition to on/off tests, if appropriate, and as directed by Commission staff.
Form 349 also contains a third-party disclosure requirement, pursuant to 47 CFR 73.3580. This rule requires stations applying for a new broadcast station, or to make major changes to an existing station, to give local public notice of this filing in a newspaper of general circulation in the community in which the station is located. This local public notice must be completed within 30 days of the tendering of the application. This notice must be published at least twice a week for two consecutive weeks in a three-week period. In addition, a copy of this notice must be placed in the station's public inspection file along with the application, pursuant to 47 CFR 73.3527. This recordkeeping information collection requirement is contained in OMB Control No. 3060-0214, which covers § 73.3527.
On May 10, 2018, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission's Rules Regarding FM Translator Interference, FCC 18-60, MB Docket No. 18-119, proposing to streamline the rules relating to interference caused by FM translators, and expedite the translator interference complaint resolution process. The proposals, if implemented, could limit or avoid protracted and contentious interference resolution disputes, provide translator licensees both additional flexibility to remediate interference and additional investment certainty, and allow earlier and expedited resolution of interference complaints by affected stations.
In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on its proposal to offer additional flexibility to translator licensees, by allowing them to resolve interference issues using the effective and low-cost method of submitting a minor modification application to change frequency to any available FM channel. This method could potentially reduce the need for pleadings to be filed at a later stage to prosecute or defend an interference claim.
Specifically, the NPRM pertains to this Information Collection as it proposes to modify § 74.1233(a)(1) of the rules to define an FM translator station's change to any available FM channel as a minor change, filed using FCC Form 349, upon a showing of actual interference to or from any other broadcast station. Currently, if an existing FM translator causes actual interference as prohibited by § 74.1203(a), it is limited to remedial channel changes, filing FCC Form 349 as a minor change application, to first, second, or third adjacent, or IF channels. A change to any other channel is considered a major change on FCC Form 349, which currently may only be submitted during a filing window. The NPRM, if adopted, will enable more translator stations to cure interference by simply changing channels by filing Form 349 as a minor change application, rather than other costlier and less efficient remedies.
With this submission, the Commission is currently seeking to obtain OMB approval for the proposed revision to § 74.1233(a)(1) of the rules. This revision will modify the number of respondents, number of responses, annual burden hours, and annual costs for this collection.
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission proposes to streamline the rules relating to interference caused by FM translators and expedite the translator complaint resolution process, based in part upon the petitions for rulemaking filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) (NAB Petition) and Aztec Capital Partners, Inc. (Aztec) (Aztec Petition). Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on: (1) Allowing FM translators to resolve interference issues by changing channels to any available frequency using a minor modification application; (2) requiring a minimum number of listener complaints to be submitted with any FM translator interference claim; (3) standardizing the information that must be included within such a listener complaint; (4) streamlining and expediting interference complaint resolution procedures; (5) establishing an outer contour limit for the affected station beyond which listener complaints would not be considered actionable; and (6) modifying the scope of interference complaints permitted to be filed by affected stations at the application stage. The Commission's proposals also apply
2. Recent substantial growth in the translator service, as well as the economic importance of translators for AM station viability, has led to increased industry interest in clarifying and streamlining the translator interference rules to create greater investment certainty and avoid protracted and expensive interference resolution disputes. As a secondary service, FM translators must not cause either predicted or actual interference to any authorized broadcast station. If interference is demonstrated, the translator must resolve the issue or cease operation. The Commission distinguishes between predicted interference, which is determined at the time a construction permit application is processed, and actual interference, which is determined after a translator station has begun operation. Under 47 CFR 74.1203(a), a translator is prohibited from causing actual interference to the direct reception by the public of the off-the-air signals of any authorized broadcast station at any time after the translator commences operation. Although listeners are permitted to submit interference complaints directly to the Commission, it is much more common for the affected station to submit a claim of actual interference to the Commission based on complaints obtained from its listeners. Under 47 CFR 74.1204(f), an application will not be granted if an objector provides convincing evidence that the predicted 60 dBµ contour of the translator would overlap a populated area already receiving a regularly used, off-the-air signal of any authorized co-channel, first, second or third adjacent channel broadcast station and grant of the authorization will result in interference to the reception of such signal.
3.
4. The Commission also seeks comment on limiting this flexibility to modification applications seeking channels within the same FM band (
5.
6. The Commission tentatively concludes that six represents a reasonable minimum of listener complaints that will address the concern that interference complaints may be inadequately substantiated without imposing too heavy an evidentiary burden on the complaining station. Therefore, the Commission proposes to amend §§ 74.1204(f) and 74.1203(a)(3) to state that interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a regularly used signal by six or more listeners, at separate locations using separate receivers, is impaired or is predicted to be impaired by the signals radiated by the FM translator station. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Although the Commission proposes a minimum number of listener complaints, it tentatively concludes that it will not adopt NAB's proposal that
7.
8. The Commission seeks comment on mandating that all listener complaints, whether submitted under 47 CFR 74.1203(a)(3) or 74.1204(f), must be signed by the listener and contain the following: (1) Full name and contact information; (2) a clear, concise, and accurate description of the location where the interference is alleged to occur; (3) to demonstrate that the complainant is a regular listener, a statement that the complainant listens to the desired station at least twice a month; and (4) to demonstrate that the complainant is disinterested, a statement that the complainant has no legal, financial, or familial affiliation with the desired station. In addition, stations submitting a translator interference claim pursuant to either 47 CFR 74.1203(a)(3) or 74.1204(f) must include a map plotting specific listener addresses in relation to the relevant station contours. This proposal would not affect the existing 47 CFR 74.1204(f) requirement to provide technical evidence of interference to the reception of the desired station at the listener locations specified, such as through U/D signal strength data.
9. The Commission seeks comment on whether these strengthened upfront listener complaint requirements would significantly reduce challenges to a listener's
10. The Commission also proposes that a listener complaint that meets the above content requirements will presumptively establish interference at the relevant location, which must then be promptly eliminated by the translator operator using any suitable technique—including, as appropriate, a modification application to change channels as proposed herein—or, if necessary, suspending operations. The Commission anticipates that the more formal and detailed complaint format proposed herein will reduce the need for staff involvement in disputes over the validity of complaints. Moreover, the Commission believes that the U/D signal ratio test procedure outlined below will minimize the need for staff involvement in the interference resolution process beyond: (1) Confirming the sufficiency of listener complaints submitted formally to the Commission; (2) notifying the relevant translator of such complaints and any applicable deadline for resolution; and (3) reviewing any technical showings purporting to establish that all interference has been resolved. The Commission also proposes to clarify that a listener whose complaint is sent to a station and then submitted as part of an interference claim or other request for relief filed by an affected station licensee is not entitled to protection under the
11. The Commission proposes to eliminate the current requirement that the complaining listener cooperate with remediation efforts. For example, a listener would not be required to accept equipment or equipment modifications (
12.
13. The Commission expresses reservations about two aspects of Aztec's proposal. First, the Commission believes that Aztec's proposal to prohibit translator interference only within the 60 dBµ contour of other stations would be inconsistent with translators' role as a secondary service, fundamentally changing the existing balance of equities between translators and other broadcast stations and affect the listening options for listeners outside the other broadcast station's protected contour. Second, the Commission tentatively concludes that it would not be advisable or administratively feasible to distinguish between fill-in and other area translators in this context, because it is a relatively simple matter for a translator licensee to change primary stations and hence change the fill-in status and protection obligations of the translator station. The Commission declines to assume that a fill-in translator presumptively provides “local” service or, conversely, that a complaining station is “distant” based merely on the distance between its transmitter site and certain of its listeners, particularly commuters. These terms may refer as much to programming content as to the proximity of the transmitter site. While the Commission's translator policy is intended to promote overall program diversity, it does not otherwise assess the value of content—again, taking into consideration the ease with which programming can be changed. For these reasons, the Commission does not seek comment on Aztec's suggestion to differentiate between fill-in and other area translators for interference protection purposes. However, the Commission seeks comment on possible alternative ways to address Aztec's underlying concerns.
14. The Commission proposes to identify a predicted signal contour within which most of a station's listeners are located and to not require the elimination of interference beyond that contour. The Commission believes that it can thus restrict stations from making specious interference allegations while preserving translators' status as a secondary service. This approach is similar to that used in the LPFM service and is based on the common language of §§ 74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1204(f), which prohibit interference to a “regularly used” broadcast signal, and § 74.1203(a)(3), which prohibits interference with another station's “reception by the public.” These provisions assume the existence of a signal capable of being regularly received by the public and therefore should not permit complaints regarding a signal that is not so received. Thus, the Commission concludes that this proposal is consistent with the secondary nature of translators. In this respect, it notes that the 60 dBµ contour standard is by no means an outer limit of listenability. Rather, this contour has been principally used as an allocations tool, which reflects a balance between providing adequate service areas and permitting a sufficient number of FM assignments.
15. For these reasons, the Commission proposes to modify 47 CFR 74.1203(a)(3) to state that no complaint of actual interference will be considered actionable if the alleged interference occurs outside the desired station's 54 dBµ contour. Would this contour limit achieve the goal of safeguarding the technical integrity of the FM band? Should there be different outer limits for interference complaints for FM stations in different Zones? The Commission tentatively concludes that the greater contour protections afforded to Class B and Class B1 in the non-reserved band are based on allocations concerns regarding populous service areas and thus do not affect this analysis or warrant separate treatment for Class B and Class B1 stations in this respect. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion.
16. Observing that the actual interference provisions of 47 CFR 74.1203(a)(3) and 74.1203(b) have given rise to some of the most lengthy and contentious proceedings—as well as to allegations of negative interactions between translator operators and complaining listeners—the Commission proposes to reduce reliance on actual interference complaints by harmonizing the scope of complaints that can be preemptively brought under 47 CFR 74.1204(f) with those that are based on allegations of actual interference. Specifically, it seeks comment on amending 47 CFR 74.1204(f) to allow an objector to submit evidence of bona fide listeners that are within the complaining station's predicted 54 dBµ contour rather than, as currently, the relevant translator's “predicted 1 mV/v (60 dBµ) contour.” By modifying the scope of predicted interference claims to more closely reflect post-grant actual interference requirements, the Commission anticipates that more potential conflicts can be resolved before applicants are fully invested in the proposed facility and may have greater flexibility in pursuing remedial steps. The Commission seeks comment on whether this proposal would encourage translator applicants and their engineers to propose facilities that are more viable in the long term. It tentatively concludes that the proposal is consistent with section 5(3) of the Local Community Radio Act of 2010 (LCRA), which states that the Commission must, when licensing new FM translator stations, ensure that they remain secondary to existing and modified full service FM stations. The proposal to modify the existing limitation in § 74.1204(f) will expand the geographic scope of potential interference complaints against translators by full service stations in most cases. In addition, as discussed above, this proposal is consistent with the secondary nature of translators. The Commission seeks comment on this conclusion.
17. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
18. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether to modify certain standards and procedures relating to FM translator interference complaints. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the following proposals: (1) Allowing translators to resolve interference issues by changing channels to any available FM frequency using a minor modification application; (2) requiring a minimum number of listener complaints to be submitted with any FM translator interference claim; (3) clarifying the information that must be included within a listener complaint; (4) establishing an outer contour limit for the affected station beyond which listener complaints would not be actionable; (5) modifying the scope of interference complaints permitted to be filed by affected stations at the application stage; and (6) streamlining and expediting interference complaint resolution procedure. These proposals could, if implemented, avoid protracted and contentious interference resolution disputes, provide translator licensees additional flexibility to remediate interference, provide translator licensees with additional investment certainty, and allow earlier and expedited resolution of interference complaints by affected stations.
19. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 316, and 319.
20. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we provide a description of such small entities, as well as an estimate of the number of such small entities, where feasible.
21.
22. According to BIA/Kelsey Publications, Inc.'s Media Access Pro Database, on March 30, 2018, 10,859 (or about 99.94 percent) of the then total number of FM radio stations (10,865); 4,629 (or about 99.94 percent) of the then total number of AM radio stations (4,632); and all of the 7,238 total FM translator stations (100 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less for the year ending 2017, and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. We note that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the above definition, business control affiliations must be included. This estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies.
23. As noted above, an element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
24. The rule changes proposed in the NPRM would, if adopted, potentially increase the number of listener complaints that must be included with an interference claim to a minimum of six and increase the amount of information to be included with each listener complaint to include signed listener statements regarding listening regularity and disinterestedness in the complaining station. However, licensees are encouraged to resolve interference complaints privately and the recourse of filing an interference claim with the Commission is purely voluntary. Moreover, the type of information to be filed (
25. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
26. In the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on its proposal to offer additional flexibility to translator licensees, including small entities, by allowing them to resolve interference issues using the effective and low-cost method of submitting a minor modification application to change frequency to any available FM channel. We also propose to clarify the information that must be contained in each listener interference complaint, thus potentially reducing lengthy and resource-intensive disputes over listener bona fides. The Commission does not anticipate that the proposed certifications would add much, if any, time needed to collect each listener complaint. These requirements could also potentially reduce the need for pleadings to be filed at a later stage to
27. None.
28.
29. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS:
•
•
○ Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
○ All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
○ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
○ U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
•
30.
31.
32.
Communications equipment, Education, Radio, Reporting and
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 74 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 310, 336 and 554.
(k)
(1) Full name and contact information;
(2) A clear, concise, and accurate description of the location where the interference is alleged or predicted to occur;
(3) A statement that the complainant listens to the desired station at least twice a month; and
(4) A statement that the complainant has no legal, financial, or familial affiliation with the desired station.
(a) * * *
(3) The direct reception by the public of the off-the-air signals of any full service station or previously authorized secondary station. Interference will be considered to occur whenever reception of a regularly used signal, as demonstrated by six or more listener complaints as defined in § 74.1201(k) and a map plotting specific listener addresses in relation to the relevant station contours, is impaired by the signals radiated by the FM translator or booster station, regardless of the quality of such reception or the channel on which the protected signal is transmitted; except that no listener complaint will be considered actionable if the alleged interference occurs outside the desired station's 54 dBµ contour.
(f) An application for an FM translator station will not be accepted for filing even though the proposed operation would not involve overlap of field strength contours with any other station, as set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, if grant of the authorization will result in interference to the reception of a regularly used, off-the-air signal of any authorized co-channel, first, second or third adjacent channel broadcast station, including previously authorized secondary service stations, within the 54 dBµ field strength contour of the desired station, as demonstrated by six or more listener complaints, as defined in § 74.1201(k), as well as a map plotting specific listener addresses in relation to the relevant station contours.
(a) * * *
(1) In the first group are applications for new stations or for major changes in the facilities of authorized stations. For FM translator stations, a major change is:
(i) Any change in frequency (output channel) except:
(A) Changes to first, second or third adjacent channels, or intermediate frequency channels; or
(B) Upon a showing of interference to or from any other broadcast station, remedial changes to any frequency; or
(ii) Any change in antenna location where the station would not continue to provide 1 mV/m service to some portion of its previously authorized 1 mV/m service area.
(iii) In addition, any change in frequency relocating a station from the non-reserved band to the reserved band, or from the reserved band to the non-reserved band, will be considered major. All other changes will be considered minor. All major changes are subject to the provisions of §§ 73.3580 and 1.1104 of this chapter pertaining to major changes.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 116 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI FMP). If approved, Amendment 116 would limit access to the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Trawl Limited Access Sector (TLAS) yellowfin sole directed fishery by vessels that deliver their catch of yellowfin sole to motherships for processing. This proposed rule would establish eligibility criteria based on historical participation in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, issue an endorsement to those groundfish License Limitation Program (LLP) licenses that meet the eligibility criteria, and authorize delivery of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to motherships by only those vessels designated on a groundfish LLP license that is endorsed for the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery.
This proposed action is necessary to prevent increased catcher vessel participation from reducing the benefits the fishery provides to historic and recent participants, mitigate the risk that a “race for fish” could develop, and help to maintain the consistently low rates of halibut bycatch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. This proposed rule is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, Amendment 116, the BSAI FMP, and other applicable laws.
Submit comments on or before July 6, 2018.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by FDMS Docket Number NOAA-NMFS-2017-0083, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 116 and the draft Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review prepared for this action (collectively the “Analysis”) may be obtained from
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS at the above address; and by email to
Bridget Mansfield, 907-586-7228 or
NMFS manages the groundfish fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of the BSAI under the BSAI FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the BSAI FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801
This proposed rule would implement Amendment 116 to the BSAI FMP. The Council submitted Amendment 116 for review by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), and a Notice of Availability (NOA) of Amendment 116 was published in the
In June 2017, the Council adopted Amendment 116. If approved by the Secretary, Amendment 116 would require that a vessel be designated on a groundfish LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement for that vessel to be used to harvest yellowfin sole in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and deliver that catch to a mothership. The terms “directed fishery” and “mothership” are defined at 50 CFR 679.2. A groundfish LLP license would be eligible for such an endorsement if it is credited with at least one qualifying landing, where the term “qualifying landing” would be defined under this proposed rule as a legal trip target landing in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery made to a mothership in any one year from 2008 through 2015. Under this proposed rule, the term “trip target” would be defined as a groundfish species that is retained in an amount greater than the retained amount of any other groundfish species for that trip. For those vessels used to make a qualifying landing, only one groundfish LLP license on which the vessel was designated during the qualifying period would be eligible to receive the endorsement under this proposed rule. If a vessel that made at least one legal trip target landing in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery from 2008 through 2015 (qualifying period) was designated on more than one groundfish LLP license during the qualifying period, the vessel owner would be required to select one groundfish LLP license that would receive credit for the qualifying landing(s) and receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.
The following sections of this preamble provide a description of (1) the LLP, the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, and related management programs; (2) the need for this proposed rule; and (3) the proposed eligibility criteria and process for obtaining new endorsements authorizing delivery of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery catch to motherships.
The Council and NMFS have long sought to control the amount of fishing effort in the BSAI groundfish fisheries to ensure that the fisheries are conservatively managed and do not exceed established biological thresholds. One of the measures used by the Council and NMFS to control fishing effort is the LLP, which limits access to the groundfish fisheries in the BSAI. With some limited exceptions, the LLP requires that persons hold and designate on a groundfish LLP license each vessel that is used to fish in Federally managed groundfish fisheries. The LLP is intended to prevent unlimited entry into groundfish fisheries managed under the BSAI FMP.
The LLP for BSAI groundfish fisheries was recommended by the Council as Amendment 39 to the BSAI FMP. The Council adopted the LLP for BSAI groundfish in June 1995, and NMFS approved Amendment 39 on September 12, 1997. NMFS published the final rule to implement the LLP on October 1, 1998 (63 FR 52642), and fishing under the LLP began on January 1, 2000. The preamble to the final rule implementing the BSAI groundfish LLP and the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for that action describe the rationale and specific provisions of the LLP in greater detail (see
The key components of the LLP are briefly summarized as follows. The BSAI groundfish LLP established specific criteria that must be met to allow a vessel to receive a groundfish
Under the LLP, NMFS issued licenses that (1) endorse fishing activities in specific regulatory areas in the BSAI; (2) restrict the length of the vessel on which the LLP license may be used; (3) designate the fishing gear that may be used on the vessel (
In order to receive a BSAI groundfish LLP license, a vessel owner had to meet minimum landing requirements with the vessel during a specific time frame. Specifically relevant to this proposed rule, a vessel owner received a BSAI groundfish LLP license endorsed for a specific regulatory area in the BSAI (the Bering Sea (BS), the Aleutian Islands (AI), or both) if that vessel met specific harvesting and landing requirements for that specific regulatory area during the qualifying periods established in the final rule implementing the LLP (63 FR 52642, October 1, 1998). NMFS issued groundfish LLP licenses with a catcher vessel (CV) operation type if a vessel caught but did not process its catch at-sea during the specific qualifying periods; and NMFS issued groundfish LLP licenses with a catcher/processor (CP) endorsement if a vessel caught and processed its own catch at-sea during the specific qualifying periods (63 FR 52642, October 1, 1998). As an example, in order to receive a groundfish LLP endorsed for trawl gear in the AI with a CP designation, a vessel must have met the minimum groundfish harvesting and landing requirements for the AI using trawl gear during the qualifying period, and must have processed the qualifying catch on board the vessel.
The yellowfin sole (
Along with other measures, Amendment 80 allocated six BSAI non-pollock groundfish species among two trawl fishery sectors. The six species, known as “Amendment 80 species,” include Aleutian Islands Pacific ocean perch, BSAI Atka mackerel, BSAI flathead sole, BSAI Pacific cod, BSAI rock sole, and BSAI yellowfin sole. These species are allocated for harvest between the Amendment 80 sector, comprised of specific vessels identified under Amendment 80, and all other BSAI trawl fishery participants not in the Amendment 80 sector. The other BSAI trawl fishery participants include American Fisheries Act (AFA) CPs, AFA CVs, and non-AFA CVs. Collectively, this group of other, or non-Amendment 80, trawl fishery participants comprises the BSAI TLAS. The BSAI TLAS is defined at 50 CFR 679.2. The BSAI TLAS fisheries are conducted in the BSAI using trawl gear, using non-Amendment 80 vessels designated on a non-Amendment 80 LLP license, and do not include CDQ groundfish fisheries or fishing for CDQ groundfish.
Each year, NMFS allocates the initial total allowable catch (ITAC) of the six Amendment 80 species, as well as crab and halibut prohibited species catch (PSC) limits, between the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI TLAS. Allocations made to the Amendment 80 sector are exclusive to the Amendment 80 sector and not subject to harvest in other fishery sectors. The Amendment 80 sector is precluded from harvesting Amendment 80 species allocated to the BSAI TLAS. The Council's intent in establishing the BSAI TLAS was to provide harvesting opportunities for AFA CPs, AFA CVs, and non-AFA CVs.
The ITAC represents the amount of TAC for each Amendment 80 species that is available for harvest after allocations to the CDQ program and the incidental catch allowance (ICA) have been subtracted. The ICA is an amount set aside for the incidental harvest of each Amendment 80 species by non-Amendment 80 vessels targeting other groundfish species in non-trawl fisheries and in the BSAI TLAS fisheries. The annual proportion of yellowfin sole ITAC allocated to the Amendment 80 sector and the BSAI TLAS depends on the amount at which the yellowfin sole ITAC is set. As the amount of ITAC for BSAI yellowfin sole increases, the proportion of the ITAC assigned to the BSAI TLAS also increases.
To further accommodate yellowfin sole harvest opportunities for the BSAI TLAS, the Amendment 80 Program relieves AFA sideboard limits for yellowfin sole when the yellowfin sole ITAC is equal to or greater than 125,000 metric tons (mt). The lifting of AFA sideboard limits for yellowfin sole allows AFA vessels to increase their yellowfin sole TLAS harvest, particularly in periods of reduced availability of pollock. Implementation of the AFA included the establishment of harvesting and processing limits, known as sideboards, to protect vessels and processors in other, non-pollock fisheries from spillover effects resulting from the rationalization and privatization of the BSAI pollock fishery. The need for AFA sideboard limits for yellowfin sole was reduced with Amendment 80, because most of the yellowfin sole ITAC is allocated to the Amendment 80 sector for exclusive harvest, and AFA vessels no longer directly compete with the Amendment 80 sector for yellowfin sole. Since 2008, the yellowfin sole ITAC has been higher than 125,000 mt, so yellowfin sole sideboard limits have not been in place for AFA vessels since implementation of Amendment 80. Additional detail on the rationale for the specific allocations in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery, and the management of AFA sideboards is provided in the final rule
Although the Council was clear in its intent to prohibit Amendment 80 vessels from harvesting Amendment 80 species allocated to the BSAI TLAS, the Council did not specifically address during its development of Amendment 80 whether Amendment 80 vessels should be eligible to serve as processing platforms for the BSAI TLAS sector. A vessel that receives and processes groundfish from other vessels is referred to as a “mothership” (see definition at 50 CFR 679.2). Although Amendment 80 vessels operate as CPs in the Amendment 80 sector (
The final rule implementing Amendment 80 clarified that Amendment 80 vessels could be used as motherships for catcher vessels fishing in the BSAI TLAS fisheries, based on public comments received on the proposed rule to implement Amendment 80, further analysis by NMFS, and the lack of clearly stated Council intent to the contrary. The final rule implementing Amendment 80 modified the proposed regulations to permit this activity, noted that this revision accommodated one Amendment 80 vessel that had historically been used as a mothership, and acknowledged that the revision provided for potential future growth in the use of Amendment 80 vessels as motherships in the BSAI TLAS. A detailed description of the Council's intent and NMFS' actions regarding limitations of Amendment 80 vessels catching, receiving, and processing fish assigned to the BSAI TLAS is provided in the proposed rule (72 FR 30052, May 30, 2007) and in the final rule implementing Amendment 80 (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007).
The current BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery is almost entirely an offshore fishery composed of two primary groups: (1) AFA CPs, and (2) AFA and non-AFA CVs delivering yellowfin sole to AFA and Amendment 80 CPs operating as motherships. Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis considered by the Council for this action noted that two stationary floating processors participated in the fishery as motherships prior to 2009. Although those processors did not participate in the fishery after 2008, data from landings to those vessels were included in the analysis of impacts of the alternatives. For purposes of this proposed rule a stationary floating processor is considered a mothership. In this preamble, NMFS uses the term “offshore sector” when referring to vessels that are harvesting BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and either delivering that catch to motherships for processing or processing their own catch. AFA CPs participate in the offshore sector by (1) catching and processing yellowfin sole (
The BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC was not fully harvested during the first five years of the fishery (2008 through 2012) due to limited fishing effort combined with high allocations. During this five-year period, harvests ranged from a low of 31 percent of the TAC in 2009 to a high of 87 percent of the TAC in 2010. Since 2013, the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC has been more fully harvested with at least 93 percent of the TAC harvested in each year (Section 2.6.1.2 of the Analysis).
Since implementation of the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery in 2008, the number of AFA CPs actively fishing and processing has ranged from 8 to 12 vessels. Until 2015, AFA CPs harvested about 85 percent of the total catch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. However, the percentage of total catch harvested by AFA CPs has diminished each year since 2015, and comprised approximately 42 percent of the total harvest in 2017. Harvest patterns of AFA CPs also have changed since the inception of the fishery. From 2008 to 2010, participating AFA CPs fished from January 20th through February and occasionally into March or April each year. Starting in 2011, prosecution of the fishery by AFA CPs developed into two distinct fishing patterns. The first pattern consists of most participating AFA CPs fishing for only two weeks beginning January 20th each year. The second pattern generally consists of two AFA CPs fishing all year. Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis provides additional detail on the participation and harvesting patterns in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery.
From 2008 through 2014, the annual number of AFA and non-AFA CVs participating in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole offshore sector ranged from zero to three vessels. The annual number of participating CVs increased to six in 2015 and to nine in 2016. In 2017, eight CVs participated in the fishery, with one CV being a new entrant to the fishery. The CV share of the total BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery harvest rose from an average of 17 percent each year from 2008 through 2014 to 45 percent in 2015, 48 percent in 2016, and 58 percent in 2017 (Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis).
Harvest patterns for CVs in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery have also changed over time. In 2008, participating CVs fished BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole from March until December. After the first year of the fishery, CVs fished BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole in April, September, and October. Starting in 2012, CVs fished BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole until the season ended or NMFS closed the fishery to directed fishing. From 2012 through 2015, this meant that CVs fished in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery throughout most of the year. However, in 2016 and 2017, the fishing season was significantly shortened, with NMFS closing the fishery in June and May, respectively, due to the TAC being reached. Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis provides additional detail on the participation and harvesting patterns in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery.
CPs operating as motherships take deliveries of harvested BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole from CVs and CPs acting as CVs for at-sea processing. Only one Amendment 80 CP acting as a mothership participated in the fishery from 2008 through 2014. From 2015 through 2017, the number of CPs operating as motherships and receiving catch from CVs expanded to seven vessels. In 2017, six Amendment 80 CPs and one AFA CP operated as motherships for CVs in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. The increased use of Amendment 80 vessels operating as motherships has increased opportunities for CV deliveries. This increased opportunity is demonstrated by the increased number of CVs that participated in 2015 through 2017, and the higher proportion of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole catch that was harvested by CVs in 2015 through 2017 relative to previous years. Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis provides additional detail on the factors affecting mothership patterns in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery.
The potential exists for additional motherships and CVs to participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis estimates that up to seven additional Amendment 80 CPs could enter the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole offshore sector as motherships based on a range of factors described in the Analysis. These motherships could provide processing capacity for up to 21 additional CVs. These estimates likely represent the maximum potential expansion of capacity in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis provides additional detail on the potential for new motherships and CVs to enter the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery.
NMFS monitors the bycatch of halibut in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery against the halibut PSC limits established for the fishery, and will close or otherwise restrict trawl harvests of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole if halibut PSC limits are projected to be reached. Fishery closures due to reaching halibut PSC limits can occur before the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC is fully harvested, thereby reducing overall revenue to vessel operators and crew. To avoid this outcome, vessel operators may accelerate fishing operations to maximize harvest of yellowfin sole before the halibut PSC limit is reached.
The halibut PSC limit for the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery ranged between 162 to 241 mt from 2008 through 2014, with the halibut PSC limit being exceeded in 2013 by 18 mt. In 2014, 60 mt of halibut PSC was reapportioned from the BSAI TLAS Pacific cod fishery to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery to allow the fishery to remain open for the rest of the year for participants to harvest the remaining BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC. From 2015 through 2017, the halibut PSC limit was between 150 to 167 mt, but it was not reached in any of these years before the fishery closed when the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC was fully harvested. Halibut mortality rates for the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery for 2008 through 2017 ranged from 1.11 to 6.55 kg halibut per mt groundfish, with a generally increasing trend from 2010 through 2016, followed by a drop in 2017.
Given the recent and dramatic increases in CV and mothership participation that have occurred in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and the expectation of additional capacity entering the fishery, the Council identified three management and conservation concerns that it wanted to address with Amendment 116: (1) The likelihood of decreasing benefits from the fishery for long-time, historic, and recent participants given the increasing number of participants in the fishery and shorter fishing seasons; (2) an increased risk of a race for fish; and (3) the potential for higher halibut bycatch. The Council noted the increase in the number of participating CVs combined with recent lower BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole allocations was resulting in a fully utilized fishery with increasingly shorter fishing seasons. Shorter fishing seasons can be more difficult for NMFS to manage catch within established limits and increase the incentives for vessels to harvest quickly in order to harvest a greater share of the TAC before it is fully harvested and the fishery is closed. This “race for fish” may result in fishing with less care and the potential for increased halibut PSC rates which could lead to closure of the fishery before the TAC is fully harvested. Public testimony to the Council included concerns that the shorter fishing season was having a negative effect on access to the fishery by CVs that participated in the fishery prior to 2015.
In order to address these concerns, the Council determined that management measures are needed that would limit access to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery by vessels harvesting BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and delivering their catch to a mothership for processing. Specifically, the Council recommended as its preferred alternative for Amendment 116 that a vessel would be eligible to participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and deliver its catch to a mothership only if that vessel was designated on a groundfish LLP license that has been credited with at least one trip target landing in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery made to a mothership or catcher/processor in any one year from 2008 through 2015. The Council recognized that this eligibility criterion may qualify more groundfish LLP licenses than vessels with a qualifying landing, because some vessels with a qualifying landing may have been designated on more than one groundfish LLP license during the qualifying period. Therefore, the Council also recommended that if a vessel with a qualifying landing was designated on more than one groundfish LLP license during the qualifying period, only those groundfish LLP licenses on which the vessel was designated, when the vessel was used to make at least one trip target landing in a BSAI TLAS fishery from 2008 through 2015, would be eligible to be credited with a qualifying landing. In such cases, the vessel owner would be required to select one of these eligible groundfish LLP licenses to receive credit with the qualifying landings. Under the proposed rule, groundfish LLP licenses that meet the eligibility criteria and are credited with a qualifying landing would receive from NMFS a groundfish LLP endorsement that would authorize participation in the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. Vessels not designated on groundfish LLP licenses that receive the endorsement would be prohibited from participating in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and delivering their catch to a mothership for processing.
The Council determined and NMFS agrees that limiting CV access to the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery is necessary to ease the likelihood of increased harvesting pressure and the shortening of the fishing season, mitigate the risk that a “race for fish” could continue to develop and accelerate, and help to maintain the consistently low rates of halibut bycatch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. The Council also determined, and NMFS agrees, that this proposed rule would reasonably balance the need to limit additional future and very recent speculative entry to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery to help control the pace of fishing with the need to provide continued access and benefits to historic, long time and more recent participants.
The Council determined and NMFS agrees that the proposed action would likely prevent the fishing season from shortening further because it removes the ability for additional capacity to enter the fishery and harvest the TAC or reach halibut PSC limits more quickly. As described in Section 2.7.1.2 of the Analysis, the fishing seasons in 2016 and 2017 were the shortest on record for this fishery at the time of the highest levels of CV participation and with CVs harvesting the highest proportion of the fishery's TAC. The pace of fishing during those fishing seasons may have increased due to additional speculative entry and concerns by ongoing participants about the increasing competition. This proposed rule could help lengthen the fishing season and mitigate a “race for fish” by limiting the eligible groundfish LLP licenses, such that participation is generally
Under the LLP, a license can be transferred to a different vessel that is eligible to be designated on that LLP license, but only one vessel can be designated on an LLP license at any given time. Additionally, a vessel may be designated on more than one LLP license at one time. Therefore, the number of eligible groundfish LLP licenses presented in this proposed rule and the Analysis represents the maximum number of CVs that NMFS currently has determined would be eligible to conduct directed fishing for BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole. If Amendment 116 is approved and this proposed rule is finalized, fewer and/or different CVs designated on groundfish LLP licenses with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement may be used to conduct directed fishing for BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and deliver the catch to a mothership. The Analysis uses the current groundfish LLP license vessel designations to describe the likely impacts of the proposed action, because it is not possible to know how the vessel designations on groundfish LLP licenses may change in the future.
The Council considered a range of options that would qualify a groundfish LLP license for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement, including: (1) How eligible landings would be determined; (2) the range of years during which eligible landings would need to be made (
At its February 2017 meeting, the Council clarified that eligibility criteria should be based on trip target landings rather than directed fishing landings. Directed fishing is defined as any fishing activity that results in retention of an amount of a species on board a vessel that is greater than the maximum retainable amount for that species (see definition at 50 CFR 679.2). Under this definition, a vessel may be targeting and retaining Pacific cod but also retaining incidentally caught yellowfin sole at an amount that exceeds the maximum retainable amount for yellowfin sole. NMFS would consider the vessel to be directed fishing for Pacific cod and directed fishing for yellowfin sole in such a situation. Thus, limiting access to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery based on a history of directed fishing activity could result in CVs meeting minimum landings requirements based on incidental catch of yellowfin sole.
Under this proposed rule, “trip target” would be defined as a landing in which the amount of retained BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole is greater than the retained amount of any other groundfish species for that trip. The Council's intent with this action is to provide endorsements to those CVs that were intentionally targeting yellowfin sole in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and not to provide endorsements to CVs that were intentionally targeting other groundfish species but retaining their incidental catch of yellowfin sole. Using trip target to determine eligibility would limit the potential for a vessel to qualify for participation in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery based on the vessel's incidental catch of yellowfin sole. This is consistent with previous eligibility criteria for limiting access to some fisheries based on trip target, rather than directed fishing activity. In the case of this proposed action, the use of trip target to establish qualification for the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement would result in the same number of LLP licenses qualifying for the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement as there were CVs that participated in the fishery for any one year during the proposed qualifying period.
The Council considered two ranges of years for determining qualifying landings; 2008 through 2015 and 2008 through 2016. The Council selected 2008 as the start of both qualifying periods because 2008 was the first year of the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. The Council ended one qualifying period with 2015, because 2015 is the year the Council initiated the analysis for Amendment 116 and the last year of participation in the fishery prior to the Council's announced control date of October 13, 2015. The Council ended the other qualifying period with 2016 to allow consideration of the most recent participants based on public testimony. In determining the two options for a qualifying period, the Council also took into consideration participation in the fishery prior to 2008 and during 2017. The Council selected 2008 through 2015 as its preferred qualifying period for eligibility for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. In selecting the 2008 through 2015 period, the Council considered the potential for future entry of capacity into the fishery, while also recognizing existing participation.
Under the 2008 through 2015 qualifying period that had at least one qualifying landing made in any one year during the period, the Analysis indicates that a total of eight LLP licenses would be eligible to receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. Under the 2008 through 2016 qualifying period with at least one qualifying landing made in any one year during the period, ten LLP licenses would be eligible to receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. The Council was aware of the potential for additional effort to enter the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery while the Council considered Amendment 116, and was aware that additional or speculative
To dampen the effect of additional or speculative entry into the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, the Council adopted a control date of October 13, 2015, which was published by NMFS in the
After the Council established the control date in 2015, the number of participating CVs increased from six in 2015 to nine in 2016, which is triple the maximum level of CV participation from 2008 through 2014 and nearly four times the average level of CV participation from 2008 through 2014. It is also a 33 percent increase over CV participation in 2015. Because the Council identified in 2015 the recent increase in CVs participating in the fishery to be the primary cause of shortened fishing seasons and the resulting “race for fish,” the Council was concerned that the even greater increase in CV participation after 2015 would further shorten the fishing season, increasing the risk of a “race for fish.” The Council considered, but rejected, ending the qualifying period in either 2016 or 2017, because the pace of fishing and harvest pressure increased in those years concurrent with the trend of increasing CV participation, including two vessels that participated in 2016 and another in 2017 that had never before been used to participate in the fishery. Those factors caused the fishery to close in June in 2016 and in May in 2017, compared to the November closure in 2015, which was more typical of previous season lengths. Based on the same factors, NMFS also determined that the 2008-2015 qualifying period best addresses the need to reduce fishing pressure and help to control the pace of fishing within the fishery.
In conjunction with its determination that 2008 through 2015 was the appropriate qualifying period, the Council also determined that that qualifying period coupled with one year for participation would result in an adequate number of qualifying groundfish LLP licenses and CVs to prosecute the offshore fishery at a pace similar to the pace of the fishery through 2015. The Council considered two options addressing the frequency of qualifying landings in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery during the qualifying period. One option would have required qualifying landings to be made in any two years during the qualifying period. The other option would require qualifying landings to be made in any one year during the qualifying period. The one year option would limit the number of CVs in the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery to eight. While this option would allow two more CVs to participate than participated in 2015, it would still allow the fishery to be fully prosecuted without the risk of continued increase in harvest pressure that could continue to shorten the fishing season or increase Pacific halibut PSC rates. The Council did not choose the two-year requirement, because under both qualifying periods it would have substantially limited participation in a manner that is not reflective of the current harvest patterns in the fishery. Specifically, the two-year option would have limited the number of CVs in the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery to three CVs owned by one company, which raised some concerns about its consistency with National Standard 4. Further, this option would have excluded at least one historic participant under both qualifying periods, which would not be consistent with the Council's intent to provide continued access and benefits to historic participants. In addition, a more restrictive option is not needed to promote conservation. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that requiring a qualifying landing in any one qualifying year during the qualifying period of 2008 through 2015 effectively limits the potential for an increasingly challenging “race for fish” and the recent growth in the CV sector.
The Council considered a range of options that would have removed the requirements for CVs to have a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement to deliver to the offshore sector if the TAC allocated to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery was above specific amounts (see Sections 2.7.2.2 and 2.7.2.3 of the Analysis). However, the Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, that options that would provide for new CV entrants during periods of high BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole allocations are not needed or appropriate. Sections 2.7.2.2 and 2.7.2.3 of the Analysis note that CVs were able to enter the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery from 2008 through 2015 under a wide range of TACs and market conditions, and those CVs that participated in the fishery during that time period would receive endorsements under this proposed rule.
The Council also determined and NMFS agrees that relieving the limit to entry into the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery by CVs could exacerbate the conditions that could lead to a “race for fish” and could increase halibut PSC mortality rates in the fishery. Further, an option for new entrants could create difficulties during the annual TAC setting process, as eligible CVs and new CV entrants negotiate a BSAI yellowfin sole TAC recommendation to the Council each year. This would complicate the determination of whether there would be a directed fishery for new CV entrants each year. The Council also considered the potential for participation in the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery by CVs currently active in the Gulf of Alaska, but without recent participation in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery. However, the Council determined that it is not necessary to provide fishing opportunities for these CVs in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery, because these CVs have extensive flatfish resources in the GOA that have remained unharvested. NMFS agrees with the Council's finding. Therefore, no such provision is included in this proposed action.
As explained earlier, the Council and NMFS recognized at the time Amendment 80 was implemented that participation by Amendment 80 vessels as motherships in the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery could continue or even increase. However, the proportion of the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery catch now being harvested by CVs that deliver their catch to Amendment 80 vessels operating as motherships is substantially greater than it was at the time the Amendment 80 Program was implemented. The final rule for the Amendment 80 Program (72 FR 52668, September 14, 2007) notes that only 1 Amendment 80 vessel was receiving and processing catch delivered from one CV in the BSAI Pacific cod fishery prior to the implementation of the Amendment 80 Program. No Amendment 80 vessel was receiving catch from CVs participating in the BSAI yellowfin sole fishery at the time the Amendment 80 Program was implemented in 2008. In 2017, 6 Amendment 80 CPs and one AFA CP operated as motherships in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery. However, from 2003 through 2014, no more than two CP vessels participated as motherships in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery in any one year (Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis). Section 2.7.1.1 of the Analysis notes that much of the increase in participation by CVs is due to an increase in the number of Amendment 80 vessels operating as motherships.
The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that it is appropriate to review the policies adopted for the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery under the Amendment 80 Program and the fishing operations in that fishery, and take action, if necessary, as fishing patterns change from those observed at the time the Amendment 80 Program was implemented. As a result, the Council concluded, and NMFS agrees, it is necessary to limit access by CVs targeting BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole for delivery to vessels operating as motherships.
The Council had information on, and heard public testimony about, the potential impacts of this proposed action on the BSAI TLAS Pacific cod fishery. As noted Section 2.7.2.1 of the Analysis, most of the CVs that participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery also participate in the BSAI TLAS Pacific cod fishery, and a CV that would not receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement for its groundfish LLP license under this proposed rule may enter or increase its participation in the BSAI TLAS Pacific cod fishery. New or increased participation in the BSAI TLAS Pacific cod fishery would only occur if there is a perceived economic benefit to doing so. A spillover effect into the BSAI TLAS Pacific cod fishery may be more likely when there are fewer CVs that have an LLP license with an endorsement to participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. This proposed action would limit the number of groundfish LLP licenses, and therefore the number of CVs, that could be used to harvest BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and deliver to a mothership, and any potential spillover effect into the BSAI TLAS Pacific cod fishery would most likely come from vessels that have participated in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, but would be excluded under this proposed rule. Under this proposed rule up to eight CVs could participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. The maximum number of CVs that participated in the fishery from 2008 through 2017 is eleven individual vessels, with a maximum of nine participating in any one year. The proposed rule would allow eight vessels to participate under groundfish LLP licenses endorsed for the fishery. While the remaining three vessels could increase BSAI TLAS Pacific cod fishery participation, they might also decline to participate in that fishery if there is no perceived economic benefit. At this time it is not possible to predict a definitive outcome.
The Council determined during its February 2017 meeting, and NMFS concurs, that this proposed action does not meet the definition of a LAP Program included in section 303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a). Section 3 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1802) defines a LAP as a Federal permit issued as part of a limited access system under section 303A to harvest a quantity of fish expressed by a unit or units representing a portion of the TAC of the fishery that may be received or held for exclusive use by a person and includes an individual fishing quota but does not include community development quotas.
This proposed action would limit the number of groundfish LLP licenses and therefore the number of CVs that could be used to harvest BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and deliver that harvest to a mothership, but it would not assign a portion of the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC for exclusive use by a person. An individual owner of a groundfish LLP license that would receive an endorsement would not be allocated a specific amount of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole that would be for the owner's exclusive use. All vessels eligible to participate in the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, both CPs and CVs designated on groundfish LLP licenses with the proposed endorsement, would continue to compete with each other in harvesting the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC and do not act together as one entity. Additionally, although CVs have not historically delivered their catch of yellowfin sole to shore-based processing plants, this proposed action does not preclude CVs from conducting directed fishing for BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and delivering that harvest to shore-based processing plants. This proposed action does not limit the amount of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole that could be harvested by a CV designated on a groundfish LLP license that has a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole endorsement; rather, it limits the number of CVs that are eligible to participate in the directed fishery and deliver their harvest to a mothership. This proposed action does not limit CPs participating in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery or assign a portion of the TAC for exclusive use by CPs. Finally, NMFS will maintain the ability to reallocate BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC to the Amendment 80 sector if NMFS determines that it will go unharvested.
In fisheries where circumstances motivate fishermen to race against each other to harvest as much fish as they can before the annual catch limit or the PSC limit is reached and the fishery closes for the season, participants can have a substantial disincentive to take actions to reduce bycatch use and waste, particularly if those actions could reduce groundfish catch rates. In a “race for fish,” participants who choose not to take actions to reduce bycatch and waste stand to gain additional groundfish catch by continuing to harvest at a higher bycatch rate, at the expense of any vessels engaged in bycatch avoidance. By limiting CV access to the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery and reducing
Additionally, industry participants have testified to the Council that some companies participating in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery reduce halibut mortality in the fishery through implementing “best practices” agreements designed to reduce halibut mortality. Such testimony indicated that these agreements have included halibut mortality target rates, real-time reporting of locations with high halibut PSC, or informal apportionment of remaining halibut mortality among vessels fishing late in the year. Limiting the number of CVs in this fishery may provide a better opportunity to implement best practices agreements, because participation in the fishery would be more stable and predictable over the long term. That stability and predictability could facilitate better communication among participants. Section 2.7.1.2 of the Analysis provides additional detail on halibut PSC management practices in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery.
Section 3.2.2.1 of the Analysis concluded that this proposed rule would not affect annual halibut PSC limits, but does have the potential to help participants maintain or reduce halibut PSC in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery, as described above. While such savings are not guaranteed or predictable due to the suite of variables that can affect halibut PSC and rates in this fishery, the proposed action addresses concerns that increasing entry could make halibut PSC increase, is expected to maintain halibut PSC at current levels, and may even create a management environment in which the participants are able to work together to reduce halibut PSC. Additionally, the Council and NMFS do not expect any negative effects on halibut from this proposed rule because halibut PSC limits for this fishery would continue to be established each year, and the fishery would be closed if NMFS determines that the halibut PSC limit will be reached before the yellowfin sole TAC is reached.
This proposed rule would implement Amendment 116 to the BSAI FMP. This proposed rule would establish eligibility criteria for, and a process to issue, a new endorsement to groundfish LLP licenses that would authorize vessels designated on those licenses and operating in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery to deliver BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole catch to a mothership. Regulations at § 679.2 define a mothership as a vessel that receives and processes groundfish from other vessels. Under this proposed rule, any vessel that meets the mothership definition at § 679.2 or has a mothership designation on its Federal Fishery Permit, including CPs and stationary floating processors, will be considered a mothership for this action. For purposes of simplicity, this preamble uses the term “BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement” to mean an endorsement on a groundfish LLP license that would allow the vessel designated on that LLP license to deliver its catch of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to a mothership for processing.
Under this proposed action, NMFS would issue a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement to a groundfish LLP license with a Bering Sea trawl endorsement if: (1) The groundfish LLP license is credited with at least one legal trip target landing in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery, and (2) the credited legal trip target landing was to a mothership in any one year of the qualifying period from 2008 through 2015. If a vessel that made at least one trip target landing in the BSAI TLAS directed fishery during the qualifying period was designated on more than one groundfish LLP license during the qualifying period, the vessel owner would be required to select one groundfish LLP license to receive credit with the qualifying landings made by that vessel during the qualifying period.
Where a vessel that made at least one trip target landing in the BSAI TLAS directed fishery from 2008 through 2015 was designated on more than one groundfish LLP license during the qualifying period, all groundfish LLP licenses on which the vessel was designated when it was used to make a trip target landing in a BSAI TLAS fishery during the qualifying period would be eligible to receive credit with the qualifying landings made by the vessel. However, none of these groundfish LLP licenses would be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement from NMFS until the vessel owner notifies NMFS and identifies which single groundfish LLP license is to be credited with the qualifying landing(s).
Based on the information provided in the Analysis and the official record, NMFS has determined that ten groundfish LLP licenses would be eligible to be credited with qualifying landing(s) and receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. Two were the sole groundfish LLP license on which a vessel that made a qualifying landing during the qualifying period was designated. Therefore, under this proposed rule, those two groundfish LLP licenses would be credited with a qualifying landing and receive a BSAI TLAS directed fishery endorsement. The remaining eight eligible groundfish LLP licenses were each one of two groundfish LLP licenses designated on a vessel that made qualifying landings during the qualifying period; therefore, those eight groundfish LLP licenses would be eligible to be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement. For any of those eight groundfish LLP licenses to be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement, the vessel owner would be required to select one groundfish LLP license that NMFS is to credit with all qualifying landings made by that vessel. Up to six of those eight groundfish LLP licenses could be credited with a qualifying landing and receive an endorsement from NMFS. Therefore, NMFS anticipates that a total of eight groundfish LLP licenses could receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement under the proposed rule, resulting in up to eight vessels that could participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and deliver their catch to a mothership.
This provision would ensure that in cases where a vessel was designated on more than one groundfish LLP license during the qualifying period when one or more qualifying BSAI TLAS trip target landings were made, only one of those groundfish LLP licenses would be credited with the qualifying landing(s). Because NMFS does not require vessel owners and operators to specify how specific landings should be credited to multiple groundfish LLP licenses on which the same vessel was designated, this provision would resolve any disputes that may arise about the assignment of specific landings by having the vessel owner identify one groundfish LLP license to credit with the qualifying landing(s).
Any vessel designated on a groundfish LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement would be authorized to deliver catch of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole in the directed fishery to a mothership. This proposed rule would not preclude a vessel with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement from delivering catch of yellowfin sole that is harvested in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery to a shore-based processing plant. This proposed rule also would
NMFS can determine which and how many landings, where landing means offloading fish (50 CFR 679.2), were made by a vessel designated on a specific groundfish LLP license during a particular timeframe. Regulations at 50 CFR 679.4(k) require an LLP license holder to designate a specific vessel on which the license will be used. This requirement allows NMFS to credit landings to a specific LLP license. NMFS also collects vessel landings data, which includes information on the species and amounts landed. From these data, NMFS has created an official record with all relevant information necessary to determine legal trip target landings that can be credited to BSAI groundfish LLP licenses.
The official record created by NMFS contains vessel landings data and the groundfish LLP licenses to which those landings are credited. Evidence of the number and amount of trip target landings of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole is based on legally submitted NMFS weekly production reports for CPs and State of Alaska fish tickets for CVs. Historically, NMFS has used only these two data sources to determine the specific amount and location of landings, and NMFS proposes to continue to do so under this action. The official record includes the records of specific groundfish LLP licenses, including vessels designated on them, and other relevant information necessary to credit landings to specific groundfish LLP licenses. NMFS presumes the official record is correct, and a person wishing to challenge the presumptions in the official record would bear the burden of proof through an evidentiary and appeals process.
In order for a groundfish LLP license to receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement and be authorized to conduct directed fishing for BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole and deliver that catch to a mothership, NMFS would first have to determine that the groundfish LLP license is an eligible license and then would have to determine that the eligible license can be credited with one or more qualifying landings. Under this proposed rule, NMFS would identify as eligible those groundfish LLP licenses with a Bering Sea trawl endorsement and those vessels using trawl gear operating under the authority of that groundfish LLP license when (1) the vessel was used to make a trip target landing in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery during any year from 2008 through 2015 and (2) the catch from that trip target landing of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole was delivered to a mothership for processing.
Based on the official record, NMFS has identified ten groundfish LLP licenses that would be eligible to be credited with qualifying landings. Two of these eligible groundfish LLP licenses were the sole groundfish LLP license on which a given vessel was designated at the time the vessel made qualifying landings of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole. Therefore, NMFS would credit these two groundfish LLP licenses with the qualifying landings under this proposed rule. NMFS proposes to list these two groundfish LLP licenses in Table 52 to part 679. The remaining eight eligible groundfish LLP licenses were not the sole groundfish LLP license on which a given vessel was designated at the time the vessel made at least one trip target in the BSAI TLAS fishery during the qualifying period. Because this proposed rule would require in such cases that the vessel owner specify one groundfish LLP license to receive credit with the qualified landing(s) made by that vessel, NMFS would not be able to credit these groundfish LLP licenses until NMFS receives notification from the vessel owner which groundfish LLP license should be credited with the qualifying landing(s). NMFS proposes to list in Table 53 to part 679 the eight groundfish LLP licenses that would be eligible for, but would not be credited with, qualifying landings until notification from the vessel owner is received by NMFS. The proposed notification process is described in the following section.
The groundfish LLP licenses identified in proposed Tables 52 and 53 to 50 CFR part 679 represent the groundfish LLP licenses that NMFS has determined would be eligible for an endorsement at this time. Additional groundfish LLP licenses may qualify for an endorsement through the proposed administrative adjudicative process described below. NMFS is proposing to list the groundfish LLP licenses it has determined are eligible to receive the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement to help facilitate the ability of the public to review their catch records and determine if additional groundfish LLP licenses may be eligible to receive the endorsement. NMFS specifically requests public comment on the groundfish LLP licenses listed in proposed Tables 52 and 53 to part 679.
If a holder of a groundfish LLP license believes the groundfish LLP license would meet the eligibility criteria, but the license is not listed in proposed Tables 52 or 53 to part 679, or if a license holder disagrees with the groundfish LLP license to which NMFS would assign the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement, the holder would have the opportunity to challenge NMFS' determination as described in the following section of the preamble.
NMFS has determined the groundfish LLP licenses identified in proposed Table 52 can be credited with qualifying landings based on the official record and would receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole endorsement under Amendment 116 and this proposed rule. If Amendment 116 is approved and this proposed rule is finalized, NMFS would issue a notification of eligibility and a revised groundfish LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement to the holders of the groundfish LLP licenses identified in proposed Table 52, using the address on record at the time the notification is sent.
NMFS has determined the groundfish LLP licenses identified in proposed
For all those groundfish LLP licenses with a Bering Sea trawl designation, but not listed in either proposed Table 52 or 53, NMFS would notify the holders that the groundfish LLP license is not eligible for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement based on the official record, using the address on record at the time the notification is sent. NMFS would provide the holder with an opportunity to submit information to NMFS to rebut the official record. NMFS would provide a single, 30-day evidentiary period from the date that notification is sent for a groundfish LLP license holder to submit any information or evidence to demonstrate that the information contained in the official record is inconsistent with the holder's records.
Under this proposed rule, a groundfish LLP license holder who submits claims that are inconsistent with information in the official record would have the burden of proving that the submitted claims are correct. NMFS would not accept claims that are inconsistent with the official record, unless they are supported by clear, written documentation. NMFS would evaluate all additional information or evidence submitted within the 30-day evidentiary period. If NMFS determines that the additional information or evidence proves that the groundfish LLP license holder's claims are correct, NMFS would amend the official record in accordance with that information or evidence. However, if, after the 30-day evidentiary period, NMFS determines that the additional information or evidence does not prove that the groundfish LLP license holder's claims were correct, NMFS would deny the claim. NMFS would notify the applicant that the additional information or evidence did not meet the burden of proof to overcome the official record through an initial administrative determination (IAD).
NMFS' IAD would indicate the deficiencies and discrepancies in the information or evidence submitted in support of the claim. NMFS' IAD would indicate which claims could not be approved based on the available information or evidence, and provide information on how an applicant could appeal an IAD. The former procedure for appealing an IAD to the NMFS' Alaska Office of Administrative Appeals was described at § 679.43. However, NMFS has centralized the appeals process in the National Appeals Office, which operates out of NMFS' headquarters in Silver Spring, MD. The National Appeals Office is now charged with processing appeals that were filed with the Office of Administrative Appeals, Alaska Region. The procedure for appealing an IAD through the National Appeals Office is at 15 CFR part 906 (79 FR 7056, February 6, 2014). During the pendency of an administrative adjudication leading to a final agency action, NMFS would issue an interim (temporary, non-transferable) license to an applicant who was authorized to participate in the fishery in the year before the IAD is issued and who makes a credible claim to eligibility for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole fishery endorsement. An applicant who was issued a license the previous year would be eligible for a non-transferable interim license pending the resolution of his or her claim pursuant to the license renewal provisions of 5 U.S.C. 558. The non-transferable, interim license would authorize the applicant to deliver BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to a mothership for processing and would be effective until final agency action on the appeal. At that time, the person who appealed would receive either a transferable license with the endorsement or a transferrable license without the endorsement, depending on the final agency action.
The following provides a brief summary of the regulatory changes that would be made by this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would add § 679.4(k)(14) to include the provisions that are necessary to qualify for, and receive, a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.
This proposed rule would add § 679.7(i)(11) to prohibit the delivery of yellowfin sole harvested with trawl gear in the BSAI TLAS directed fishery to a mothership without a copy of a valid LLP with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement except as provided in § 679.4(k)(2). Section 679.4(k)(2) lists the specific conditions under which vessels are not required to be designated on LLP licenses to harvest groundfish. None of the vessels currently exempted from the requirements to be designated on an LLP license under § 679.4(k)(2) participate in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery.
This proposed rule would add Table 52 to part 679 to list those groundfish LLP licenses that NMFS has determined would be eligible, would be credited with qualifying landings, and would receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement under this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would also add Table 53 to part 679. Table 53 would list those pairs of groundfish LLP licenses that NMFS has determined would be eligible to be credited with qualifying landings, such that each pair was designated on the same vessel that made the qualifying landings. Because only one groundfish LLP license could be credited with the qualifying landings, the owner of the vessel designated on the pair of groundfish LLP licenses would notify NMFS which one groundfish LLP license of the pair should be credited with the qualifying landings. Upon receipt of the written notification from the vessel owner, NMFS would credit the qualifying
Pursuant to sections 304(b) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 116, the BSAI FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An RIR was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
This IRFA was prepared for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), to describe why this action is being proposed; the objectives and legal basis for the proposed rule; the number of small entities to which the proposed rule would apply; any projected reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the proposed rule; any overlapping, duplicative, or conflicting Federal rules; and any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives, consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant adverse economic impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Descriptions of the proposed action, its purpose, and the legal basis are contained earlier in this preamble and are not repeated here.
The directly regulated entities under this proposed rule are (1) holders of groundfish LLP licenses that authorize a vessel designated on the LLP license to harvest groundfish using trawl gear in the Bering Sea and (2) vessel owners that must choose one of two LLP licenses on which the vessel was designated during the qualifying period. Based on the best available and most recent complete data from 2008 through 2017, 163 groundfish LLP license holders and five vessel owners would be directly regulated by this proposed action.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.
The RFA requires consideration of affiliations between entities for the purpose of assessing whether an entity is classified as small. The AFA pollock and Amendment 80 cooperatives are types of affiliation between entities. All of the AFA and Amendment 80 cooperatives have gross annual revenues that are substantially greater than $11 million. Therefore, NMFS considers members in these cooperatives “affiliated” large (non-small) entities for RFA purposes.
Of the 163 groundfish LLP license holders directly regulated by the proposed action, 128 were members of an AFA cooperative and 26 were members of an Amendment 80 cooperative in 2017. Therefore, NMFS considers those 154 groundfish LLP license holders to be “affiliated” large (non-small) entities for RFA purposes. All of the groundfish LLP licenses with designated vessels that participated in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery and delivered catch to a mothership from 2008 through 2017 were affiliated with either an AFA or an Amendment 80 cooperative in 2017. NMFS therefore considers these LLP license holders to be “affiliated” large (non-small) entities for RFA purposes. The remaining nine groundfish LLP license holders are not affiliated with AFA or Amendment 80 cooperatives and are assumed to be small entities directly regulated by this action for purposes of the RFA. All five vessel owners who are considered regulated entities under this proposed rule were affiliated with either an AFA pollock or an Amendment 80 cooperative in 2017. Therefore, NMFS considers them “affiliated” large (non-small) entities for RFA purposes. This IRFA assumes that each vessel owner and each groundfish LLP license holder is a unique entity; therefore, the total number of directly regulated entities may be an overestimate because some vessel owners and groundfish LLP license holders are likely affiliated through common ownership. These potential affiliations are not known with the best available data and cannot be predicted.
Under this proposed rule, access to the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery by vessels that deliver their BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery catch to a mothership for processing would be limited to only those vessels designated on a groundfish LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement. However, no small entities would qualify to hold a groundfish LLP license with such an endorsement. None of the nine LLP license holders who are considered small entities regulated under this proposed rule are expected to be adversely impacted by this proposed rule. Based on a review of fishery data from 2008 through 2017, none of those nine groundfish LLP licenses had designated on it a vessel that delivered BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery catch to a mothership for processing. This proposed rule would not limit existing delivery patterns by vessels designated on those nine LLP licenses. This proposed rule would limit the future opportunity for the holders of these nine LLP licenses to deliver BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery catch to a mothership for processing. The lack of any quantitative data on potential future delivery patterns makes it impossible to rigorously assess the expected economic impact of limiting these nine LLP license holders from future deliveries of BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery catch to a mothership for processing.
The RFA requires identification of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule that accomplish the stated objectives of the proposed action, consistent with applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The Council considered a status quo alternative and one action alternative with several options and suboptions. The combination of options and suboptions under the action alternative provided a reasonable range of potential alternative approaches to status quo management.
Under the status quo, there would be a risk of continued increasing harvest
The Council considered a range of dates, varying levels of participation, and a suite of mechanisms to provide greater harvesting and processing opportunities for CVs to deliver to offshore processors during periods of high BSAI yellowfin sole TAC. The Council recommended the proposed combination of dates and participation level to relieve the recent increase in harvest pressure and rate and give historic fishery participants sufficient opportunity to harvest and deliver BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole to motherships without increasing the risk of shorter fishing seasons and higher Pacific halibut PSC rates.
The Council and NMFS considered two alternatives. Alternative 1, the no action alternative, would not limit access by catcher vessels to the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery. Alternative 2 would limit access by CVs to the offshore BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery.
Under Alternative 2, two options with four and eight suboptions, respectively, were considered. The suboptions under Option 1 would limit access to the fishery to CVs with qualifying deliveries to a mothership from 2008 through 2015 in either any one or any two years or from 2008 through 2016 in either any one or any two years. Suboptions under Option 2.1 would allow all CVs with BSAI trawl endorsements access to the fishery when the TAC assigned to the BSAI TLAS is equal to or greater than an amount in a range of suboptions from 15,000 mt through 30,000 mt. Suboptions under Option 2.2 would limit access to the fishery by CVs that do not meet landings qualifications under Option 1 to a portion of the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole TAC equal to or greater than an amount in a range of suboptions from 15,000 mt through 30,000 mt. The combination of options and suboptions under Alternative 2 provided the Council and NMFS with a broad range of alternative policy considerations relative to the no action alternative (Alternative 1). The proposed rule incorporates the preferred option and suboption under Alternative 2 which would limit access to the fishery to CVs with qualifying deliveries to a mothership from 2008 through 2015 in any one year, because that combination would best prevent increased catcher vessel participation from reducing the benefits the fishery provides to historic and recent participants, mitigate the risk that a “race for fish” could develop, and help to maintain the consistently low rates of halibut bycatch in the BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery.
No duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal rules has been identified.
This proposed rule does not add additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements for the vessels that choose to submit an appeal. An appeal process exists for LLP license endorsement issuance. No small entity is subject to reporting requirements that are in addition to or different from the requirements that apply to all directly regulated entities. No unique professional skills are needed for the LLP license or vessel owners or operators to comply with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with this proposed rule. This proposed rule would not implement or increase any fees that NMFS collects from directly regulated entities. The Analysis prepared for this action identifies no operational costs of the endorsement (see
This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act. These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval under a temporary new information collection, to be merged after approval with OMB Control Number 0648-0334. The public reporting burden for the collection-of-information requirements in this proposed rule is estimated to average two hours per response for a one-time Election to Assign Qualifying Landings to an LLP license and 4 hours per response to submit an appeal, which includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Public comment is sought regarding (1) whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the burden estimate; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS Alaska Region at the
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 679 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(k) * * *
(14)
(ii)
(A) A groundfish LLP license is eligible to receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement if the groundfish LLP license:
(
(
(
(B) If a vessel specified in paragraph (k)(14)(ii)(A)(
(iii)
(A) NMFS will determine whether a groundfish LLP license is eligible to receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement under paragraph (k)(14)(ii) of this section based only on information contained in the official record described in paragraph (k)(14)(v) of this section.
(B) NMFS will credit a groundfish LLP license with a legal trip target landing specified in paragraph (k)(14)(ii)(A)(
(C) Trip target landings will be determined based on round weight equivalents.
(iv)
(v)
(A) The official record will contain all information used by the Regional Administrator that is necessary to administer the requirements described in paragraph (k)(14) of this section.
(B) The official record is presumed to be correct. A groundfish LLP license holder has the burden to prove otherwise.
(C) Only legal landings as defined in § 679.2 and documented on State of Alaska fish tickets or NMFS weekly production reports will be used to determine legal trip target landings under paragraph (k)(14)(ii)(A)(
(vi)
(A) NMFS will issue to the holder of each groundfish LLP license endorsed to use trawl gear in the Bering Sea and designated in Column A of Table 52 to this part a notice of eligibility to receive a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement and a revised groundfish LLP license with a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole directed fishery endorsement.
(B) NMFS will issue to the holder of each groundfish LLP license endorsed to use trawl gear in the Bering Sea and designated in Column A of Table 53 to this part a notice of eligibility to be credited with a legal trip target landing specified in (k)(14)(ii)(A)(
(C) NMFS will issue to the holder of a groundfish LLP license with a Bering Sea trawl designation and that is not listed in either proposed Table 52 or 53 a notice informing that holder that the groundfish LLP license is not eligible to be credited with a legal trip target
(D) The Regional Administrator will specify by letter a 30-day evidentiary period during which an applicant may provide additional information or evidence to amend or challenge the information in the official record. A person will be limited to one 30-day evidentiary period. Additional information or evidence received after the 30-day evidentiary period specified in the letter has expired will not be considered for purposes of the initial administrative determination (IAD).
(E) The Regional Administrator will prepare and send an IAD to the applicant following the expiration of the 30-day evidentiary period, if the Regional Administrator determines that the information or evidence provided by the person fails to support the person's claims and is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the official record is correct, or if the additional information, evidence, or revised application is not provided within the time period specified in the letter that notifies the applicant of his or her 30-day evidentiary period. The IAD will indicate the deficiencies with the information or evidence submitted. The IAD will also indicate which claims cannot be approved based on the available information or evidence. A person who receives an IAD may appeal pursuant to 15 CFR part 906. NMFS will issue a non-transferable interim license that is effective until final agency action on the IAD to an applicant who avails himself or herself of the opportunity to appeal an IAD and who has a credible claim to eligibility for a BSAI TLAS yellowfin sole endorsement.
(i) * * *
(11)
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; correction and extension of comment period.
The USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF) published in the
To allow more time to review materials at the corrected website, comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by July 6, 2018. The Draft EIS is expected in spring of 2019 and the Final EIS is expected in spring of 2020.
Send written comments to David Palmer, District Ranger, High Cascade Ranger District, 47201 Hwy 62, Prospect, OR 97536. Comments may be submitted electronically at
Anne Trapanese, Environmental Coordinator
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
In the
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Southern Region Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (Recreation RAC) will meet in Atlanta, Georgia. The Recreation RAC is authorized pursuant with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004 (the Act) and operations in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to provide recommendations to the Secretary on recreation fees on lands and waters managed by the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the regions covered by each Committee. Recreation RAC information can be found at the following website:
The meeting will be held on the following dates:
• Thursday, June 21, 2018, from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.; and
• Friday, June 22, 2018, from 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
All Recreation RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under the
The meeting will be held at the Grand Hyatt Atlanta in Buckhead, 3300 Peachtree Road Northeast, Atlanta, Georgia. The meeting will also be held via teleconference. For anyone who would like to attend the teleconference, please visit the website listed in the
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Caroline Mitchell, Southern Region Assistant Recreation RAC Coordinator by phone at 501-321-5318, or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.
The purpose of the meeting is to receive recommendations concerning recreation fee proposals on areas managed by the Forest Service in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by June 11, 2018, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Chris Sporl, Designated Federal Officer, Southern Recreation Resource Advisory Committee, USDA Forest Service, 1720 Peachtree Road Northwest, Atlanta, Georgia 30309; by email to
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
The USDA Forest Service (USFS), Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, announces the availability of the Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the Boardman to Hemingway Transmission Line Project (B2H Project) for public review. The proposed actions and activities described in the Draft ROD are subject to project-level predecisional administrative review (known as an “objection” process) and a 45-day objection filing period began with publication of a legal notice in the Baker City Herald. The USFS previously notified the public that the agency would waive its administrative review procedures and adopt the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) protest procedures for its decisions to issue a special use authorization and to amend the Forest Plan. Following further review of the scope of the decisions that the USFS will make and the applicable regulations, the USFS determined it must instead follow their own agency's project-level predecisional administrative review process.
An individual or entity who meets eligibility for objecting to a draft decision outlined in 36 CFR 218.5 and wishes to file an objection must do so within 45 days of the date that the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest published the Legal Notice in the newspaper of record, the
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was circulated by the BLM. The USFS adopted the FEIS. As a cooperating agency for the B2H Project, the USFS need not recirculate the FEIS. However, the document remains available for review on the Applicant's project website at
The reviewing officer for this project is James Peña, Regional Forester, Pacific Northwest Region. Written objections, including any attachments, must be filed with the reviewing officer and may be sent as follows:
Arlene Blumton, Forest Service Project Lead; by telephone at 541-962-8522; or email to
For information about the BLM's involvement, contact: Renee Straub, Assistant Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District Office; 100 Oregon St., Vale, Oregon 97918; by telephone 541-473-6289. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at (800) 877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), together with cooperating agencies including the USFS, prepared a FEIS and proposed Land Use Plan Amendments for the B2H Project. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the FEIS in the
The FEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of BLM granting a right-of-way to Idaho Power Company (Applicant) to use BLM-managed lands to construct and operate an approximately 300 mile long overhead, single-circuit, 500-kilovolt (kV) alternating-current electric transmission line with ancillary facilities. The FEIS also analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the USFS issuing a special use authorization for the construction, operation, and maintainenance of those portions of the transmission line and ancillary facilities located on lands administered by the USFS. In addition, the FEIS analyzes the potential environmental impacts of an amendment to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest's 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) that are necessary to make the Forest Plan consistent with the B2H Project.
The USFS Responsible Official, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Supervisor, must respond to the Applicant's request for use of National Forest System lands and determine whether to issue a special-use authorization for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Action and, if issued, determine what terms and conditions should apply. The USFS Responsible Official must also approve any amendment to the Forest Plan necessary
The FEIS and the USFS's Draft Record of Decision (ROD) are available for public review. As required by 36 CFR 218.7(c), the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest published a Legal Notice of the opportunity to object in the newspaper of record, the Baker City Herald. Eligible individuals and entities may file objections pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B. The USFS previously notified the public that, pursuant to 36CFR 219.59(a), the agency would waive its administrative review procedures and adopt the BLM's protest procedures for its decisions to issue a special use authorization and to amend the Forest Plan (NOA for the Draft EIS, 79 FR 75834). Following further review of the scope of the decisions that the USFS will make and the applicable regulations, the USFS determined it must instead follow the project-level predecisional administrative review process described at 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B.
National Institute of Food and Agriculture, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the National Institute of Food and Agriculture's (NIFA) intention to revise a currently approved information collection, 0524-0039 entitled, “NIFA Application Kit”. NIFA does not plan to make any language changes to this information collection.
Written comments on this notice must be received by August 6, 2018 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments concerning this notice and requests for copies of the information collection may be submitted by any of the following methods: Email:
Robert Martin; Email:
The forms and narrative information are mainly used for application evaluation and administration purposes. While some of the information is used to respond to inquiries from Congress and other government agencies, the forms are not designed to be statistical surveys.
Also included in this information collection is one form
The individual form burden is as follows (calculated based on a survey of grant applicants conducted by NIFA):
Comments should be sent to the address stated in the preamble.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments also will become a matter of public record.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that the meeting of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Mountain Time) Thursday, June 7, 2018. The purpose of this meeting is for the Committee to vote on the final draft of their advisory memorandum issued to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights focused on voting rights.
These meetings will be held on Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. MT.
Ana Victoria Fortes (DFO) at
This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-339-3513, conference ID number: 8937790. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. They may be faxed to the Commission at (213) 894-0508, or emailed Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meetings at
On January 30, 2018, Volkswagen Group of America—Chattanooga Operations, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 134—Site 3, in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On January 31, 2018, Movado Group, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 49J, in Moonachie, New Jersey.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, requesting subzone status for the facility of Black
The proposed subzone (19 acres) is located at 4260 Pleasant Road, Fort Mill, South Carolina. Black & Decker indicates that it will conduct the same activity as currently authorized by the FTZ Board at its Subzone 38E. No additional authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 38.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 16, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to July 31, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's website, which is accessible via
For further information, contact Qahira El-Amin at
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board by the County of Broward, Florida, grantee of FTZ 25, requesting authority to reorganize and expand the zone under the alternative site framework (ASF) adopted by the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.2(c)). The ASF is an option for grantees for the establishment or reorganization of zones and can permit significantly greater flexibility in the designation of new subzones or “usage-driven” FTZ sites for operators/users located within a grantee's “service area” in the context of the FTZ Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for a zone. The application was submitted pursuant to the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on May 30, 2018.
FTZ 25 was approved by the FTZ Board on December 27, 1976 (Board Order 113, 42 FR 61, January 3, 1977) and expanded on August 11, 1978 (Board Order 132, 43 FR 36989, August 21, 1978); on October 10, 1991 (Board Order 537, 56 FR 52510, October 21, 1991); on March 18, 2005 (Board Order 1382, 70 FR 15836, March 29, 2005); and, on August 27, 2009 (Board Order 1645, 74 FR 46571, September 10, 2009).
The current zone includes the following sites:
The grantee's proposed service area under the ASF would be Broward County, Florida, as described in the application. If approved, the grantee would be able to serve sites throughout the service area based on companies' needs for FTZ designation. The application indicates that the proposed service area is within and adjacent to the Port Everglades Customs and Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority to reorganize its existing zone to include all of the existing sites as “magnet” sites. The applicant is also requesting to expand Site 1 from 88.8 acres to 132 acres. The ASF allows for the possible exemption of one magnet site from the “sunset” time limits that generally apply to sites under the ASF, and the applicant proposes that Site 1 (as modified) be so exempted. The application would have no impact on FTZ 25's previously authorized subzones.
In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Qahira El-Amin of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to evaluate and analyze the facts and information presented in the application and case record and to report findings and recommendations to the FTZ Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is August 6, 2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to August 20, 2018.
A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable June 6, 2018.
Myrna Lobo at (202) 482-2371 or Chien-Min Yang at (202) 482-5484, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On April 16, 2018, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated the countervailing duty (CVD) investigation of certain steel wheels (steel wheels) from the People's Republic of China (China).
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a CVD investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if a petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), a petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reason for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On May 15, 2018, Accuride Corporation and Maxion Wheels Akron LLC (collectively, the petitioners) submitted a timely request pursuant to section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(2) and (e) to postpone the preliminary determination. The petitioners stated that due to the number and nature of subsidy programs under investigation, the purpose of its request was to provide Commerce with adequate time to examine the amount of subsidies received by producers and exporters of subject merchandise in China.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioners have stated the reasons for postponement of the preliminary determination, and the record does not present any compelling reasons to deny the request. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination to August 24, 2018. Pursuant to section 705(a)(l) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable June 6, 2018.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) hereby publishes a list of scope rulings and anticircumvention determinations made between January 1, 2017, and March 31, 2017, inclusive. We intend to publish future lists after the close of the next calendar quarter.
Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-4735.
Commerce regulations provide that the Secretary will publish in the
Interested parties are invited to comment on the completeness of this list of completed scope inquiries. Any comments should be submitted to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, Washington, DC 20230.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(o).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable June 6, 2018.
Brenda E. Brown, Office of AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with April anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (POR), it must notify Commerce within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
In the event Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review. We intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 30 days of publication of the initiation
In the event Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:
In general, Commerce has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding
For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than April 30, 2019.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (
Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The regulations, at 19 CFR 351.301, also provide specific time limits for such factual submissions based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the final rule, available at
Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement; notice of initiation of scoping process; notice of public scoping meetings; requests for comments.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council announces its intent to prepare, in cooperation with NMFS and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, an amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for Bluefish. An environmental impact statement may be necessary for the amendment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act to analyze the impacts of any proposed management measures. The Council has initiated this amendment in order to perform a review of the sector-based allocations, commercial allocations to the states, goals and objectives of the fishery management plan, and quota transfer processes.
This notice announces a public process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed, and for identifying the significant issues related to the bluefish fishery in the Greater Atlantic region. This notice is to alert the interested public of the scoping process, the potential development of a draft environmental impact statement, and to provide for public participation in that process.
Written comments must be received on or before 11:59 p.m., EST, on July 6, 2018. Twelve public scoping meetings will be held during this comment period. See
Written comments may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
• Mail or hand deliver to Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, Delaware 19901. Mark the outside of the envelope “Bluefish Allocation Amendment Scoping Comments”; or
• Fax to (302) 674-5399
The scoping document may be obtained from the Council office at the previously provided address, or by request to the Council by telephone (302) 674-2331, or via the internet at
Comments may also be provided verbally at any of the 12 public scoping meetings. See
Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 North State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901, (telephone 302-674-2331).
More details on the topics addressed in this supplementary information section may be found in the Bluefish Allocation Amendment Scoping Document (see
The Council, in cooperation with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), has initiated this action in order to: (1) Update the Atlantic Bluefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) goals and objectives for bluefish management; and (2) perform a comprehensive review of the bluefish sector allocations, commercial allocations to the states, and transfer processes within the FMP. This action was proposed so that the FMP goals and objectives, allocations, and transfer processes can be assessed in light of potential changing fishery conditions and aligned better with stakeholder priorities. Some management questions for consideration in this amendment include: (1) Are the existing goals and objectives appropriate for managing the bluefish fishery; (2) is the existing allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors based on the annual catch limit appropriate for managing the bluefish fishery; (3) are the existing commercial state allocations appropriate for managing the bluefish fishery; and (4) are the existing transfer processes appropriate for managing the bluefish fishery?
The scoping period is an important opportunity for members of the public to raise concerns related to the scope of issues that will be considered in the amendment. The Council needs your input to identify management issues, develop effective alternatives, and identify possible impacts to be considered. Public comments early in the amendment development process will help the Council address issues of public concern in a thorough and appropriate manner. Comments can be made in writing or during the scoping hearings as described above (see
Following the scoping process, the Council will develop a range of management alternatives to be considered and potentially prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to
The Council will take and discuss scoping comments on this amendment at the following 12 scoping meetings dates and locations:
The scoping hearings are accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders (302-674-2331, ext 251) at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
NMFS has determined that 14 exempted fishing permit (EFP) applications warrant further consideration and is requesting public comment on the applications. Thirteen EFP applicants request an exemption from a prohibition on the use of unauthorized fishing gear to harvest highly migratory species (HMS), and one EFP applicant requests an exemption from a prohibition on the use of pelagic longline gear in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to harvest HMS under the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP). These applicants request the exemption to test the effects and efficacy of using deep-set buoy gear (DSBG), deep-set linked buoy gear (DSLBG), or deep-set short longline (DSSLL) to harvest swordfish and other HMS off of the U.S. West Coast.
Comments must be submitted in writing by July 6, 2018.
You may submit comments on the pending EFP applications, identified at the e-Rulemaking portal by NOAA-NMFS-2018-0063, by any of the following methods:
•
•
The EFP applications and other relevant information referenced in the Supplementary Information section below can accessed at:
Chris Fanning, NMFS West Coast Region, 562-980-4198.
DSBG fishing trials have occurred for the past eight years under research permits (2011-2015) and EFPs (2015-2018)) in the U.S. West Coast EEZ off California. The data collected from this fishing activity have demonstrated that about 95% of DSBG fish species caught are marketable (75% swordfish, 3% opah, and 17% marketable sharks). Non-marketable fish species catch rates have remained low and all non-marketable catch were released alive. Because DSBG is actively tended by the
DSLBG research fishing trials have been conducted with a total of 40 sets in 2015-2017 and produced similar results to DSBG. Swordfish and other marketable fish species have represented about 90% of the catch (68% swordfish, 2% opah, 5% escolar, and 16% marketable sharks). Non-marketable fish species were released alive due to quick DSLBG strike detection and active gear tending, which has a similar time frame as with DSBG. Research fishing trials are still ongoing with DSLBG. To date, there have been no interactions with protected species using DSLBG.
At the November 2017 and March 2018 Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) meetings, the PFMC reviewed 15 applications for EFPs. Based, in part, upon recommendations by the PFMC's HMS Management Team, the PFMC recommended that NMFS consider issuing EFP's to authorize use of DSBG and/or DSLBG to 13 of the applicants (see Table 1). These are also proposed to take place in the U.S. West Coast EEZ off California. These recommendations can be found on the PFMC's website at
In addition, in February 2018 the Regional Administrator for the NMFS West Coast Region directly received an EFP application pursuant to 50 CFR 600.745 from Mr. John Hall for one vessel to fish with DSSLL in the U.S. EEZ off the West Coast, not less than 20 nautical miles offshore from the U.S.-Mexican border to the Oregon-Washington border. Mr. Hall proposes to use deep set pelagic longline gear with a main line of five nautical miles in length and not less than 15 hooks per buoy and to target HMS. Mr. Hall also intends to employ a number of marine mammal, sea bird, sea turtle, and shark mitigation measures (
NMFS is requesting public comment on the 13 DSBG/DSLBG applications recommended for consideration by the PFMC and the one DSSLL application received directly from the applicant pursuant to 50 CFR 600.745. If all applications are approved, the EFPs would allow up to 13 vessels to fish with DSBG, up to four vessels to fish with DSLBG, and one vessel to fish with DSSLL throughout the duration of each EFP, in portions of the U.S. West Coast EEZ. These vessels would be permitted to fish exempt from the prohibitions of the HMS FMP pertaining to non-authorized gear types. Aside from the exemption described above, vessels fishing under an EFP would be subject to all other regulations implemented in the HMS FMP, including measures to protect sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds.
NMFS will consider all public comments submitted in response to this
16 U.S.C. 1801
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) is announcing an opportunity for public comments on the proposed extension of a collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by OMB Control No. 3038-0033 by any of the following methods:
• The Agency's website, at
•
•
Please submit your comments using only one method. All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Robert Schwartz, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 416-5958; email:
Under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
With respect to the following collection of information, the CFTC invites comments on:
• Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;
• The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology;
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.
There are no capital costs or operating costs or maintenance costs associated with this collection.
44 U.S.C. 3501
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2018 for the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL) program, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number 84.016A.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Tanyelle H. Richardson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 258-14, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6391. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
These priorities are:
Applications from Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) (as defined in this notice) or community colleges (as defined in this notice), whether as individual applicants or as part of a consortium of institutions of higher education (IHEs) (consortium) or a partnership between nonprofit educational organizations and IHEs (partnership).
An application from a consortium or partnership that has an MSI or community college as the lead applicant will receive more points under this priority than applications in which the MSI or community college is a member of a consortium or partnership but not the lead applicant.
A consortium or partnership must undertake activities designed to incorporate foreign languages into the curriculum of the MSI or community college and to improve foreign language and international or area studies instruction on the MSI or community college campus.
We will award either 2 or 3 points to an application that meets this priority. If an MSI or community college is a single applicant, or the lead applicant in a consortium or partnership, the application will receive 3 additional points. If an MSI or community college is a member of a consortium or partnership, but not the lead applicant, the application will receive 2 additional points. No application will receive more than 3 additional points for this priority.
Applications from IHEs or consortia of these institutions that require entering students to have successfully completed at least 2 years of secondary school foreign language instruction or that require each graduating student to earn two years of postsecondary credit in a foreign language (or have demonstrated equivalent competence in the foreign language) or, in the case of a 2-year degree granting institution, offer two years of postsecondary credit in a foreign language.
These priorities are:
Applications that propose programs or activities focused on language instruction or development of area or international studies programs to include substantive training and thematic focus on any modern foreign languages, except French, German, or Spanish.
Applications that propose to create innovative curricula that combine the teaching of international studies with one of the following academic fields of study: science, technology, engineering, mathematics, business, economics, public health, international and comparative education and computer science. Programs can be located within the applicant's home IHE or within an IHE that is part of the consortium/partnership applying for the grant.
The list of institutions currently designated as eligible under Title III and Title V is available at:
(2) An assurance that the faculty and administrators of all relevant departments and programs served by the applicant are involved in ongoing collaboration with regard to achieving the stated objectives of the application;
(3) An assurance that students at the applicant institutions, as appropriate, will have equal access to, and derive benefits from, the UISFL Program;
(4) An assurance that each applicant, consortium, or partnership will use the Federal assistance provided under the UISFL Program to supplement and not supplant non-Federal funds the
(5) A description of how the applicant will provide information to students regarding federally funded scholarship programs in related areas;
(6) An explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views, and generate debate on world regions and international affairs, where applicable; and
(7) A description of how the applicant will encourage service in areas of national need, as identified by the Secretary.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to IHEs only.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2018 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice. The estimated range of and average size of awards are based on a single 12-month budget period. We may use FY 2018 funds to support multiple 12-month budget periods for one or more grantees.
1.
2. a.
b.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative,
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, budget section, including the narrative budget justification ; Part IV, the assurance and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the biography, or letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all the application narrative [Part III].
1.
(a)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) High quality in the design of the project;
(ii) An effective plan of management that ensures proper and efficient administration of the project;
(iii) A clear description of how the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the program;
(iv) The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective; and
(v) A clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as—
(A) Members of racial or ethnic minority groups;
(B) Women; and
(C) Handicapped persons.
(b)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The qualifications of the project director (if one is to be used);
(ii) The qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the project. In the case of faculty, the qualifications of the faculty and the degree to which that faculty is directly involved in the actual teaching and supervision of students; and
(iii) The time that each person referred to in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section plans to commit to the project; and
(iv) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic minority groups, women, handicapped persons, and the elderly.
(3) To determine the qualifications of a person, the Secretary considers evidence of past experience and training, in fields related to the objectives of the project, as well as other information that the applicant provides.
(c)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The budget for the project is adequate to support the project activities; and
(ii) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project.
(d)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows methods of evaluation that are appropriate for the project and, to the extent possible, are objective and produce data that are quantifiable.
(e)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) Other than library, facilities that the applicant plans to use are adequate (language laboratory, museums, etc.); and
(ii) The equipment and supplies that the applicant plans to use are adequate.
(f)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The institution's current strength as measured by the number of international studies courses offered;
(ii) The extent to which planning for the implementation of the proposed program has involved the applicant's faculty, as well as administrators;
(iii) The institutional commitment to the establishment, operation, and continuation of the program as demonstrated by optimal use of available personnel and other resources; and
(iv) The institutional commitment to the program as demonstrated by the use of institutional funds in support of the program's objectives.
(g)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The extent to which the proposed activities will contribute to the implementation of a program in international studies and foreign languages at the applicant institution;
(ii) The interdisciplinary aspects of the program;
(iii) The number of new and revised courses with an international perspective that will be added to the institution's programs; and
(iv) The applicant's plans to improve or expand language instruction.
(h)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The extent to which the proposed activities are needed at the applicant institution;
(ii) The extent to which the proposed use of Federal funds will result in the implementation of a program in international studies and foreign languages at the applicant institution;
(iii) The likelihood that the activities initiated with Federal funds will be continued after Federal assistance is terminated; and
(iv) The adequacy of the provisions for sharing the materials and results of the program with other institutions of higher education.
(i)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The extent to which the applicant's proposed apportionment of Federal funds among the various budget categories for the proposed project will contribute to achieving results;
(ii) The international nature and contemporary relevance of the proposed project;
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will make an especially significant contribution to the
(iv) The adequacy of the applicant's provisions for sharing the materials and results of the proposed project with the higher education community.
Additional information regarding these criteria is in the application package for this program. The total number of points available under these selection criteria combined with the competitive preference priorities, is as follows:
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary also requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
The Secretary, to the extent practicable and consistent with the criterion of excellence, seeks to encourage diversity by ensuring that a variety of types of projects and institutions receive funding.
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Take notice that on May 18, 2018, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (Natural), 3250 Lacey Road, 7th Floor, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515-7918 has filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, requesting authority to construct, install, modify, operate and maintain a new 22,490 horsepower compressor station in Cameron Parish, Louisiana and appurtenances (CS 348) with interconnections to Natural's existing Louisiana Line Nos. 1 and 2 and NGPL Lateral which will interconnect the new compressor station with Sabine Pass Liquefaction, LLC's (SPL) liquefaction export terminal (SPL Terminal), all as more fully described in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. This project is referred to as the Sabine Pass Compression Project. The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Specifically, the new compressor station will: (1) Allow Natural to deliver an additional 400,000 dekatherms (Dth) per day of natural gas on a firm basis to the SPL Terminal at a minimum delivery pressure and (2) provide a level of increased operational flexibility on Natural's system based on how Natural operates its existing Compressor Station No. 342 and new CS 348, both on Natural's Louisiana Line Nos. 1 and 2.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Bruce
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign utility company status filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
June 7, 2018.
The Closed meeting will follow the Joint meeting of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Restricted Area, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
Closed.
Non-Public Investigations and Inquiries, Enforcement Related Matters.
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.
Chairman McIntyre and Commissioners LaFleur, Chatterjee, Powelson, and Glick voted to hold a closed meeting on June 7, 2018. The certification of the General Counsel explaining the action closing the meeting is available for public inspection in the Commission's Public Reference at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
The Chairman and the Commissioners, the Commission's Secretary, the General Counsel, and members of their staff, members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and members of their staff are expected to attend the meeting. Other staff members from the Commission's program offices who will advise the Commissioners in the matters discussed will also be present.
On May 23, 2018, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff held an informal technical conference to discuss issues raised in the protests and comments regarding the January 25, 2018 filing made by Atmos Pipeline—Texas in the above-captioned docket. This notice establishes the comment periods for parties wishing to submit comments following the technical conference. All parties are invited to submit initial comments on or before Wednesday, June 13, 2018. Reply comments are due on or before Tuesday, July 3, 2018.
For more information, please contact Deirdra Archie at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed an application submitted by Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (licensee) to allow Carolina Sand, Inc. (Carolina Sand), in Burke County, North Carolina, the use of Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric (FERC No. 2232) project lands and waters to conduct hydraulic sand mining. The project is located on the Catawba and Wateree rivers in Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, Catawba, Alexander, Iredell, Mecklenburg, Lincoln, and Gaston counties, North Carolina, and York, Lancaster, Chester, Fairfield, and Kershaw counties in South Carolina. The project does not occupy federal land.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared as part of
The EA is available for electronic review and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's website at
For further information, contact Alicia Burtner at (202) 502-8038 or by email at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on May 25, 2018, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2017), Cheniere Energy, Inc. filed a petition for a declaratory order seeking a ruling that certain proposed transactions discussed in the petition would not violate the Commission's buy-sell prohibition or any related capacity release rule, regulation, or policy, all as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
This filing is accessible on-line at
Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on June 25, 2018.
On May 29, 2018, the Commission issued an order in Docket No. EL18-148-000, pursuant to section 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2012), instituting an investigation into whether Moxie Freedom LLC's rates for Reactive Service may be unjust and unreasonable.
The refund effective date in Docket No. EL18-148-000, established pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication of this notice in the
Any interested person desiring to be heard in Docket No. EL18-148-000 must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214, within 21 days of the date of issuance of the order.
Take notice that on May 24, 2018, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC (EGT), 1111 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002-5231, filed in Docket No. CP18-490-000 a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), requesting authorization to modify its Allen Compressor Station located in Hughes County, Oklahoma. Specifically, EGT seeks to: (1) Uprate the existing 13,200 horsepower (hp) Solar Mars 90 turbine to a 16,000 hp Solar Mars 100 turbine engine; and (2) replace the existing compressor impeller. EGT states that the proposed Allen Compressor Station Modification would provide about 20,000 dekatherms per day of increased firm transportation service on EGT's Line AD-East. EGT estimates the cost of the project to be $4,322,592, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
The filing may also be viewed on the web at
Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Lisa Yoho, Senior Director, Regulatory and FERC Compliance, Enable Gas Transmission, LLC, PO Box 1336, Houston, Texas 77251-1336, by telephone at (346) 701-2539, by fax at (346) 701-2905, or by email at
Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9, within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either: complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of the EA for this proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's EA.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Information Collection Request for the Underground Injection Control Program” (EPA ICR No. 0370.26, OMB Control No. 2040-0042) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0359 online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Kyle Carey, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water/Drinking Water Protection Division, 4606M, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2322; fax number: (202) 564-3756; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1633.17, OMB Control No. 2060-0258) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0022, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Karen VanSickle, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Air and Radiation, (6204M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-343-9220; fax number: 202-343-2361; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In notice document 2018-11320 appearing on pages 24990-24992 in the issue of May 31, 2018, make the following corrections:
1. On page 24991, in the first column, under the
2. On the same page, in the third column, in the 42nd line, “June 25, 2018” should read “July 2, 2018”.
3. On the same page, in the same column, in the 48th line, “June 25, 2018” should read “July 2, 2018”.
4. On page 24992, in the first column, beginning in the third line, “June 25, 2018” should read “July 2, 2018”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1617.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0247) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through December 31, 2018. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2018.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0118, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Christina Thompson, Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6205T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-0983; fax number: (202) 343-2362; email address:
Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Other affected groups include independent standards testing organizations and organizations with technician certification programs.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
In this document, the Commission, via the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau), invites comment on several issues related to interpretation and implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) following the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in
Comments are due on June 13, 2018. Reply comments are due on June 28, 2018.
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
•
•
• Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
For further information, contact Kristi Thornton of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-2467 or
This is a summary of the Commission's Public Notice, document DA 18-493, released on May 14, 2018. The full text of document DA 18-493 will be available for public inspection and copying via ECFS, and during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. A copy of document DA 18-493 and any subsequently filed documents in this matter may also be found by searching ECFS at:
Interested parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated above in the Dates portion of this notice. All filings must reference CG Docket Nos. 18-152 and 02-278. Pursuant to § 1.1200 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1200, this matter shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
1. In the Public Notice, the Bureau seeks comment on several issues related to interpretation and implementation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), following the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in
2. The Bureau seeks comment on how to interpret “capacity” in light of the court's guidance. For example, how much user effort should be required to enable the device to function as an automatic telephone dialing system? Does equipment have the capacity if it requires the simple flipping of a switch? If the addition of software can give it the requisite functionality? If it requires essentially a top-to-bottom reconstruction of the equipment? In answering that question, what kinds (and how broad a swath) of telephone equipment might then be deemed to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system? Notably, in light of the court's guidance that the Commission's prior interpretation had an “eye-popping sweep,” the Bureau seeks comment on how to more narrowly interpret the word “capacity” to better comport with the congressional findings and the intended reach of the statute.
3. The Bureau seeks further comment on the functions a device must be able to perform to qualify as an automatic telephone dialing system. Again, the TCPA defines an “
4. Regarding the provision concerning a “random or sequential number generator,” the court noted that “the 2015 ruling indicates in certain places that a device must be able to generate and dial random or sequential numbers to meet the TCPA's definition of an autodialer, [and] it also suggests a competing view: that equipment can meet the statutory definition even if it lacks that capacity.” The court explained “the Commission cannot, consistent with reasoned decisionmaking, espouse both competing interpretations in the same order.” And so, like the court, the Bureau seeks comment on “which is it?” If equipment cannot itself dial random or sequential numbers, can that equipment be an automatic telephone dialing system?
5. The court also noted that the statute prohibits “mak[ing] any call . . . using any automatic telephone dialing system”—leading to the question “does the bar against `making any call using' an [automatic telephone dialing system] apply only to calls made using the equipment's [automatic telephone dialing system] functionality?” The Bureau seeks comment on this question. If a caller does not use equipment as an automatic telephone dialing system, does the statutory prohibition apply? The court also noted that adopting such an interpretation could limit the scope of the statutory bar: “the fact that a smartphone could be configured to function as an autodialer would not matter unless the relevant software in fact were loaded onto the phone and were used to initiate calls or send messages.” Should the Commission adopt this approach? More broadly, how should the Commission interpret these various statutory provisions in harmony? The Bureau also seeks comment on a petition for declaratory ruling filed by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform and several other parties, asking the Commission to clarify the definition of “automatic telephone dialing system” in light of the D.C. Circuit's decision.
6.
7.
8.
9. The Bureau seeks comment on issues raised in those petitions and whether contractors acting on behalf of federal, state, and local governments are “persons” under the TCPA. While the question of whether contractors acting on behalf of state and local governments are “persons” for purposes of the TCPA is not raised in the pending petitions for reconsideration of the
10.
11. The Bureau also seeks comment on the interplay between the
Do persons who are not federal contractors collect federal debts? Or does the Budget Act amendment underlying the
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC or Receiver), as Receiver for each of the following insured depository institutions, was charged with the duty of winding up the affairs of the former institutions and liquidating all related assets. The Receiver has fulfilled its obligations and made all dividend distributions required by law.
The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary, including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments, and deeds. Effective on the termination dates listed above, the Receiverships have been terminated, the Receiver has been discharged, and the Receiverships have ceased to exist as legal entities.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) is adopting a proposal to extend for three years, without revision, the Survey of Consumer Finances (FR 3059; OMB No.7100-0287).
Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission, supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than June 22, 2018.
1.
Notice.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is seeking nominations for membership on the BSC, NIOSH. The BSC consists of 15 experts in fields associated with occupational safety and health. Nominations are being sought for individuals who have expertise and qualifications necessary to contribute to the accomplishments of the committee's objectives. Nominees will be selected based on expertise in the fields of occupational medicine, occupational nursing, industrial hygiene, occupational safety and health engineering, toxicology, chemistry,
Nominations for membership on the BSC must be received no later than August 1, 2018. Packages received after this time will not be considered for the current membership cycle.
All nominations should be mailed to NIOSH Docket 278, c/o Pauline Benjamin, Committee Management Specialist, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd. NE, MS: E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, or emailed (recommended) to
Alberto Garcia, M.S., DFO, CDC/NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Ave. MS R-5, Cincinnati, OH 45226, telephone (513) 841-4596;
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services policy stipulates that committee membership be balanced in terms of points of view represented, and the committee's function. Appointments shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV status, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Current participation on federal workgroups or prior experience serving on a federal advisory committee does not disqualify a candidate; however, HHS policy is to avoid excessive individual service on advisory committees and multiple committee memberships. Committee members are Special Government Employees (SGEs), requiring the filing of financial disclosure reports at the beginning and annually during their terms. CDC reviews potential candidates for NIOSH BSC membership each year, and provides a slate of nominees for consideration to the Secretary of HHS for final selection. HHS notifies selected candidates of their appointment near the start of the term in January 2019, or as soon as the HHS selection process is completed. Note that the need for expertise varies from year to year and a candidate who is not selected in one year may be reconsidered in a subsequent year. SGE Nominees must be U.S. citizens, and cannot be full-time employees of the U.S. Government. Candidates should submit the following items:
Current curriculum vitae, including complete contact information (telephone numbers, mailing address, email address).
At least one letter of recommendation from person(s) not employed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Candidates may submit letter(s) from current HHS employees if they wish, but at least one letter must be submitted by a person not employed by an HHS agency (
Nominations may be submitted by the candidate him- or herself, or by the person/organization recommending the candidate. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting for the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR) of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH). This meeting is open to the public, but without a public comment period. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number at 1-866-659-0537; the pass code is 9933701. The conference line has 150 ports for callers.
The meeting will be held on July 24, 2018, 10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EDT.
Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing. The USA toll-free dial-in number is 1-866-659-0537; the pass code is 9933701.
Theodore Katz, MPA, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, Telephone (513)533-6800, Toll Free 1(800)CDC-INFO, Email
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered on February 12, 2018, pursuant to Executive Order 13708, and will terminate on September 30, 2019.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled
CDC must receive written comments on or before August 6, 2018.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2018-0053 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Leroy A. Richardson, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Data Collection Through Web Based Surveys for Evaluating Act Against AIDS Social Marketing Campaign Phases Targeting Consumers—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In response to the continued HIV epidemic in our country, CDC launched Act Against AIDS (AAA), a multifaceted communication campaign to reduce HIV incidence in the United States in 2009. CDC has released the campaign in phases, with some of the phases running concurrently. Each phase of the campaign uses mass media and direct-to-consumer channels to deliver messages. Some campaigns provide basic education and increase awareness of HIV/AIDS among the general public whereas others emphasize HIV prevention and testing among specific subgroups or communities at greatest risk of infection. CDC will also develop new messages to address changes in prevention science and subpopulations affected by HIV. The proposed study will assess the effectiveness of these social marketing messages aimed at increasing HIV/AIDS awareness, increasing prevention behaviors, and improving HIV testing rates among consumers.
This extension of an ongoing study will allow for continued evaluation of the effectiveness of AAA social marketing campaign through surveys with consumers. A total of 10,750 respondents were approved for the previously renewed generic ICR (0920-0920) and since the approval date, 4,305 respondents were surveyed under the GenIC, “Development of Messages for
Through this extension, we plan to reach the remaining approved 6,445 respondents. To obtain the remaining respondents, we anticipate screening approximately 32,220 individuals. Depending on the target audience for the campaign phase, the study screener will vary. The study screener may address one or more of the following items: Race/ethnicity, sexual behavior, sexual orientation, gender identity, HIV testing history, HIV status, and injection drug use. Each survey will have a core set of items asked in all rounds, as well as a module of questions relating to specific AAA phases and activities.
Respondents will be recruited through national opt-in email lists, the internet, and external partnerships with community-based and membership organizations that work with or represent individuals from targeted populations (
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Request for public comment.
The Administration for Children and Families, HHS, solicits comments by August 5, 2018 on the criteria for evidence of effectiveness for the What Works Clearinghouse of Proven and Promising Projects to Move Welfare Recipients into Work. Final criteria for evidence of effectiveness will be used to develop the clearinghouse.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-31 (
Section 413(g)(2) of Public Law 115-31 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing the criteria of effectiveness. The statute further stipulated that the (B) process for establishing the criteria—
(i) is transparent;
(ii) is consistent across agencies;
(iii) provides opportunity for public comment; and
(iv) takes into account efforts of Federal agencies to identify and publicize effective interventions, including efforts at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Department of Justice.
Prior to the enactment of Public Law 115-31, the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at HHS had developed the Employment Strategies for Low-Income Adults Evidence Review (ESER). The new statute aligns with and extends the work of ESER. HHS proposes building on this existing work to develop the new Clearinghouse.
The Employment Strategies for Low-Income Adults Evidence Review (ESER) is a systematic review of the evaluation research published between 1990 and 2014 on employment and training programs for low-income adults. It culminated in a searchable, public database (
To assess the quality of the evidence, ESER reviewed each study's methods to
Through this review, ESER was able to identify interventions whose findings could be considered most reliable. Studies' ratings reflect the rigor of their study methods, independent of whether the findings were positive or negative. As a result, a study could be rated High or Moderate even if the intervention studied did not improve the outcomes for low-income adults. While the vast majority of studies included in ESER achieved a High rating (and, therefore, are considered to provide reliable, or strong, evidence), the review also found that, overall, null impacts were more prevalent than statistically significant impacts.
While ESER did not assess the effectiveness of the interventions reviewed, ESER conducted a number of preliminary steps necessary for assessing effectiveness. This included categorizing each study's findings according to whether it found positive, negative or null impacts for the interventions studied. In addition, through a number of synthesis briefs (published on the website), ESER qualitatively and quantitatively summarized the direction of impacts for different interventions and highlighted interventions associated with the greatest number of positive impacts.
To be included in ESER, studies had to—
• Quantitatively measure the effectiveness of a program or strategy
• Be published between 1990 and 2014
• Study an employment program or strategy— an intervention— that
○ had a primary aim of improving employment-related outcomes
○ primarily targeted low-income adults
○ took place in the United States, Canada, or the United Kingdom
To identify studies eligible for review, ESER issued a call for papers, conducted literature searches, and consulted with experts in workforce development programs that serve low-income adults.
ESER looked at the effects of the interventions on four domains, or outcome areas:
• Employment
• Earnings
• Public benefit receipt
• Education/training
Outcomes were examined for short and longer-term impacts (longer-term was measured as being more than 18 months after the intervention was implemented).
The ESER website (
While ESER's overall population of interest was low-income adults, a majority of the studies in ESER examined welfare populations. Because studies of interventions in a welfare setting typically include both recipients and applicants, ESER does not include any studies that solely focused on welfare recipients. ESER does, however, include interventions targeted to low-income populations understood to share important characteristics with welfare recipients, such as other public benefit recipients, and those considered hard to employ, including those who have been homeless or formerly incarcerated.
In fall 2017 and early winter 2018, OPRE engaged in a series of systematic consultations with federal and non-federal technical experts on evidence reviews. In addition to representation from the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Education (ED) in these consultations, federal representation included the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a number of HHS agencies/offices including the Office of Family Assistance (OFA), the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
The objective of these consultations was to help HHS:
(1) Develop criteria for categorizing interventions in the new Clearinghouse as proven, promising, developmental, or ineffective,
(2) develop these criteria through a process that
a. involved consultation with the Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Education (ED), and other entities with experience evaluating relevant effectiveness research,
b. allowed HHS to better understand other Federal evidence reviews' standards and processes and determine where it would make sense for the new Clearinghouse to be consistent with these standards and processes, and
(3) learn best practices from other Federal evidence reviews for identifying and publicizing effective interventions
To ensure that the Clearinghouse's procedures and standards, including the criteria for evidence of effectiveness, are transparent, HHS intends to implement the following practices:
• Post the procedures and standards and information about the process on the Clearinghouse website.
• Provide the public a means of contacting the Clearinghouse, for example, by establishing a help desk to respond to email inquiries.
To ensure that the Clearinghouse is as consistent as possible with other federal evidence reviews in its processes and standards, HHS intends to implement the following practices:
• Adopt the standards and methods for reviewing studies from OPRE's existing Employment Strategies Evidence Review (ESER) (
• In any instances where the new Clearinghouse's ratings of a project's strength of evidence or effectiveness differ from another federal evidence review that rates projects according to the same outcomes (such as the Department of Labor's (DOL's) Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and
To provide an opportunity for public comment on the criteria for effectiveness, ACF is publishing this
To ensure the Clearinghouse reflects the learning of other Federal agencies about how to identify and publicize effective interventions, HHS intends to implement the following practices:
• Use some of the methods adopted by other clearinghouses to create multiple products tailored to different audiences and use graphic design and other user-friendly dissemination elements to help users digest evidence quickly.
• Include information on the Clearinghouse website that is especially useful to practitioners, such as summary information about projects and approaches.
• Develop and incorporate alternative media for the Clearinghouse such as videos that will tailor communication to various groups.
• Ensure that information is effectively conveyed on the Clearinghouse website by soliciting feedback from various stakeholders who can represent key target audiences. Key among these would be state or county Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Workforce Development practitioners, as well as evaluation researchers.
HHS intends to employ the criteria established by OPRE's Employment Strategies for Low-Income Adults Evidence Review (ESER) to assess the quality of study design and to assess the strength of the evidence resulting from studies. These criteria (referred to as “standards and methods”) are available in ESER's Standards and Methods report
The legislation requires that ratings, or categorizations, of evidence of effectiveness be applied to projects and approaches. To standardize definitions for these terms, HHS intends to define a project and an approach as follows:
• Define project to be a specific bundle of services and/or policies implemented in a given context.
• Project will be the unit that receives an effectiveness rating (
• Define approach to be the guiding framework of specific services (
• Approaches will not be rated as proven, promising, developmental, or ineffective, but the Clearinghouse will include narrative summaries related to different approaches.
• While the legislation does not require HHS to define or evaluate the effectiveness of program components, there is interest in the field in examining program components. Thus, HHS intends that the Clearinghouse include meta-analyses of specific components of projects (such as “case management” or “job search assistance”) whenever appropriate and feasible.
Before a project can be categorized as being proven, promising, developmental, or ineffective, a number of preliminary definitions, or parameters, must be established to guide decision making. These include the outcomes for which a project's effectiveness will be evaluated, how a favorable or unfavorable effect will be measured, and how an effectiveness rating will be applied to a project.
HHS intends that the new Clearinghouse will review the following outcomes:
○ Employment (short and longer-term),
○ earnings (short and longer-term),
○ educational attainment, and
○ public benefit receipt.
HHS intends that the Clearinghouse consider only statistically significant findings (p <.05) as evidence of favorable or unfavorable effects.
HHS intends to reduce the likelihood for reporting a false positive rate for outcomes—an issue that can occur when studies use multiple measures or multiple outcomes to assess impacts in the same domain (
HHS intends that evidence of effectiveness ratings will be applied within outcome domains; each project will receive ratings of effectiveness on
The legislation directs HHS to categorize projects as Proven, Promising, Developmental, or Ineffective.
HHS intends that for a project to be considered proven, the following conditions must be met:
• There must be at least two separate studies of the same project that meet evidence standards and meet criteria for a promising rating.
○ Studies are considered to be separate studies of the same project if they use non-overlapping samples to examine distinct implementations of the project.
• There must be only favorable or null impacts within a given outcome domain. Thus, no studies that meet evidence standards for a given outcome domain can show an unfavorable impact within that domain.
• Projects that have both favorable and unfavorable impacts in a given domain will be categorized as mixed.
• A project has a limited number, or proportion, of null findings in a given domain.
HHS is soliciting comments on how to best determine the ceiling for the number, or proportion, of null to positive findings in a given domain.
If subsequent studies or replications result in only null findings in a given domain, the review will establish procedures for revisiting a project's rating of proven.
HHS intends that for a project to be considered promising, the following conditions must be met:
• One study of a project must meet evidence standards.
• That study must find only favorable or null impacts within a given outcome domain. Thus no studies that meet evidence standards for an outcome domain can show an unfavorable impact within the domain.
○ If the review examines more than one measure to identify impacts on a particular domain (
• Projects that have both favorable and unfavorable impacts in a given domain will be categorized as mixed.
HHS intends that for a project to be considered ineffective, the following conditions must be met:
• One or more studies of a project must meet evidence standards.
• There must be only findings of unfavorable or null effects in a given domain.
• For studies finding null effect in a given domain, the review will include a measure of statistical precision—so that small, under-powered studies do not drive the effectiveness rating. If an intervention has been evaluated using only small studies, a lack of detectable effects could reflect either ineffectiveness of the intervention or the lack of statistical power to detect effects. It would be misleading to characterize this latter scenario as an ineffective project.
HHS intends that for a project to be considered developmental, the following conditions must be met:
• There must be at least one current, ongoing evaluation of the project that uses a study design that meets evidence standards but has not yet produced impact findings.
HHS intends that there be an additional category for categorizing evidence of effectiveness called mixed. HHS proposes that for a project to be considered mixed, the following conditions must be met:
• One or more studies of a project must meet evidence standards.
• The studies find both favorable and unfavorable impact estimates within the same domain.
3.2.8 HHS intends that narrative descriptions of rated projects, narrative descriptions of approaches, and information on case studies be provided to users of the Clearinghouse to facilitate a fuller understanding of the field of welfare-to-work interventions.
Comments may be submitted until August 5, 2018 by email to
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
The purpose of the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program is to support collaboration with and input from the Delta Regional Authority to develop a pilot program to help underserved rural communities in the Delta region identify and better address their health care needs and to help small rural hospitals improve their financial and operational performance. HRSA received an additional $2,000,000 in FY 2018 to support the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program, increasing the total FY 2018 resources from $2,000,000 to $4,000,000. The single award recipient, the Rural Health Resource Center has a need for additional funds to support activities performed within the scope of this program. The center will use a multipronged approach to deliver phased-in technical assistance (TA) to all eight Delta Region communities.
Further information on the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program is available at:
Rachel Moscato, Program Coordinator, Delta Region Community Health Systems Development, Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, HRSA,
The Delta Region Community Health Systems Development program is authorized by Section 711(b) of the Social Security Act, (42 U.S.C. 912 (b)), as amended.
HRSA established the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program in FY 2017, under announcement HRSA-17-117, providing up to $2,000,000 per year to one awardee, the Rural Health Resource Center for a three-year project period: September 30, 2017 through September 29, 2020. The FY 2018 House Report 115-244 and Senate Report 115-150 Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141) provided direction that an additional $2,000,000 included in the appropriation to be used to support the Delta Program. HRSA plans to increase the maximum funding per year for the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program to $4,000,000 for one award recipient in FY 2018, as well as in subsequent budget periods within the three-year project period, should funds become available.
HRSA will provide $2,000,000 in additional resources to the current award recipient, the Rural Health Resource Center in FY 2018 to support additional activities within the scope of the Delta Region Community Health Systems Development Program. The recipient will utilize its existing infrastructure and a multipronged approach to deliver intensive assistance to all eight Delta Region communities, including onsite assessments in financial, operational performance, and quality improvement in the areas of population health, social services, emergency medical services, and telehealth. Please direct any questions or concerns to
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research Committee.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 8, 2018, 8:00 a.m. to June 8, 2018, 5:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the
The meeting will be held on June 7, 2018, 7:00 a.m. to June 8, 2018, 5:00 p.m. The meeting location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Hawaii (FEMA-4366-DR), dated May 11, 2018, and related determinations.
The declaration was issued May 11, 2018.
Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.
Notice is hereby given that, in a letter dated May 11, 2018, the President issued a major disaster declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State of Hawaii resulting from the Kilauea volcanic eruption and earthquakes beginning on May 3, 2018, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the designated area and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
The following areas of the State of Hawaii have been designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:
Hawaii County for Public Assistance, including direct Federal assistance.
All areas within the State of Hawaii are eligible for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities. The flood hazard determinations modified by each LOMR will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and their contents.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings, and for the contents in those buildings. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species. With some exceptions, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibits activities with listed species unless a Federal permit is issued that allows such activities. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits.
We must receive written data or comments on the applications at the address given in
•
•
Karen Marlowe, Permit Coordinator, 404-679-7097 (telephone) or 404-679-7081 (fax).
We invite review and comment from local, State, and Federal agencies and the public on applications we have received for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. These activities often include such prohibited actions as capture and collection. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under the authority of section 10(c) of the ESA.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received two applications from Pacific Gas and Electric Company for two 20-year incidental take permits under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The applications address the potential for “take” of the federally endangered Mount Hermon June beetle and Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, as well as the federally threatened California red-legged frog, that is likely to occur incidental to the removal of vegetation along two natural gas pipelines that traverse Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, California. We invite comments from the public on the application packages, which include two low-effect habitat conservation plans.
To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by July 6, 2018.
Chad Mitcham, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, by U.S. mail to the Ventura office, or by telephone at (805) 677-3328.
We have received two applications from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for two 20-year incidental take permits (ITPs) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 9 of the ESA and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened. “Take” is defined under the ESA to include the following activities: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532); however, under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed species. “Incidental Take” is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity (50 CFR 17.3). Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are provided at 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. Issuance of an incidental take permit must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species.
PG&E (hereafter, the applicant) has submitted two low-effect HCPs in support of their applications for incidental take permits (ITPs) to address take of the Mount Hermon June beetle, Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, and the California red-legged frog. The Sandhills HCP addresses take of the Mount Hermon June beetle that is likely to occur as the result of direct impacts on up to 2.9 acres (ac) of habitat that is occupied by the species. The North
The applicant proposes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the Mount Hermon June beetle associated with the covered activities by fully implementing the Sandhills HCP. The following measures will be implemented: (1) Vegetation management will take place outside of the flight season (May 1 through August 31) of the Mount Hermon June beetle; (2) a biological monitor will be present during all work activities to identify appropriate access and work areas to minimize impacts to sandhills habitat; (3) if any life stage of the Mount Hermon June beetle is encountered during work activities, work will cease and a Service-approved biologist will be notified and the individual(s) will be relocated to suitable habitat not affected by work activities; (4) all cut stumps will be left intact to reduce ground disturbance; (5) all workers will participate in awareness training to inform them about the Mount Hermon June beetle and associated conservation measures to be followed; and (6) permanently protect habitat for the Mount Hermon June beetle through the purchase of 2.9 ac of conservation credits at the Zayante Sandhills Conservation Bank. The applicant will fund up to $795,735 to ensure implementation of all minimization measures, monitoring, and reporting requirements identified in the HCP.
The applicant proposes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander and California red-legged frog associated with the covered activities by fully implementing the North Coast HCP. The following measures will be implemented: (1) All workers will participate in awareness training to inform them about the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander and California red-legged frog and associated conservation measures to be followed; (2) vegetation management activities will take place between April 15 and September 15, to minimize impacts to the species; (3) impacts to small mammal burrows will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable; (4) a qualified biologist will monitor all vegetation removal activities to ensure compliance with required avoidance and minimization measures; (5) if a Santa Cruz long-toed salamander or California red-legged frog is encountered in an area to be impacted, work in that area will cease until the animal moves from the area or a Service-approved biologist captures and relocates the individual outside of the work area; (6) permanently protect habitat for the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander through the dedication of a 7.2-ac conservation easement at the Tucker Property in Santa Cruz County; and (7) provide $342,432 to fund the creation, management and monitoring of 1.75 ac of California red-legged frog aquatic breeding habitat at Yellowbank Creek, near the town of Davenport in Santa Cruz County. The applicant will fund up to $1,424,432 to ensure implementation of all minimization measures, monitoring, and reporting requirements identified in the HCP.
In each of the two proposed HCPs, the applicant considers two alternatives to the proposed action: “No Action” and “Original Project.” Under the “No Action” alternative, an ITP for the proposed project would not be issued. The proposed conservation strategies would not be provided to effect recovery actions for the impacted species. The “No Action” alternative would not achieve vegetation management guidelines for PG&E infrastructure and would not result in benefits for the covered species; therefore, for each of the proposed HCPs, the applicant has rejected the “No Action” alternative. Under each of the two “Original Project” alternatives, the applicant would remove considerably more habitat along the subject natural gas pipeline, resulting in greater impacts to the covered species. Through coordination with the Service, PG&E revised the projects in a way that could still achieve desired vegetation management goals, while reducing impacts to the covered species. Therefore, the applicant has also rejected both of the “Original Project” alternatives.
The Service has made preliminary determinations that issuance of both incidental take permits is neither a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, nor that it will, individually or cumulatively, have more than a negligible effect on the Mount Hermon June beetle, Santa Cruz long-toed salamander, and California red-legged frog. Therefore, in accordance with these preliminary determinations, both permits qualify for a categorical exclusion under NEPA.
Written comments we receive become part of the public record associated with this action. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We provide this notice under the ESA, section 10(c) (16 U.S.C. 1531
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Notice and request for nominations.
The U.S. Department of the Interior proposes to appoint members to the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG). The Secretary of the Interior, acting as administrative lead, is requesting
Nominations must be postmarked by July 6, 2018.
Nominations should be sent to Brent Rhees, Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 125 S State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, UT 84138, or via email to
Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive Management Work Group, Environmental Resources Division, at (801) 524-3635, fax: 801-524-5499, or by email at
The Grand Canyon Protection Act (Act) of October 30, 1992, Public Law 102-575; Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2 authorized creation of the AMWG to provide recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior in carrying out the responsibilities of the Act to protect, mitigate adverse impacts to, and improve the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon National Recreational Area were established, including but not limited to, natural and cultural resources and visitor use.
The duties or roles and functions of the AMWG are in an advisory capacity only. They are to: (1) Establish AMWG operating procedures, (2) advise the Secretary in meeting environmental and cultural commitments including those contained in the Record of Decision for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement and subsequent related decisions, (3) recommend resource management objectives for development and implementation of a long-term monitoring plan, and any necessary research and studies required to determine the effect of the operation of Glen Canyon Dam on the values for which Grand Canyon National Park and Glen Canyon Dam National Recreation Area were established, including but not limited to, natural and cultural resources, and visitor use, (4) review and provide input on the report identified in the Act to the Secretary, the Congress, and the Governors of the Colorado River Basin States, (5) annually review long-term monitoring data to provide advice on the status of resources and whether the Adaptive Management Program (AMP) goals and objectives are being met, and (6) review and provide input on all AMP activities undertaken to comply with applicable laws, including permitting requirements.
Prospective members of AMWG need to have a strong capacity for advising individuals in leadership positions, team work, project management, tracking relevant Federal government programs and policy making procedures, and networking with and representing their stakeholder group. Membership from a wide range of disciplines and professional sectors is encouraged.
Members of the AMWG are appointed by the Secretary and are comprised of—
a. Secretary's Designee, who will serve as Chairperson for the AMWG.
b. One representative each from the following entities: The Secretary of Energy (Western Area Power Administration), Arizona Game and Fish Department, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Southern Paiute Consortium, Pueblo of Zuni.
c. One representative each from the Governors from the seven basin States: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
d. Representatives each from the general public as follows: Two from environmental organizations, two from the recreation industry, and two from contractors who purchase Federal power from Glen Canyon Powerplant.
e. One representative from each of the following DOI agencies as ex-officio non-voting members: Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service.
At this time, we are particularly interested in applications from representatives of the following:
(a) One each from the basin states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming;
(b) one each from Native American Tribes (Hualapai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni and Southern Paiute Consortium);
(c) two from environmental interests;
(d) two from recreational interests;
(e) two Federal power purchase contractors; and,
(f) one from Arizona Game and Fish Department.
After consultation, the Secretary of the Interior will appoint members to the AMWG. Members will be selected based on their individual qualifications, as well as the overall need to achieve a balanced representation of viewpoints, subject matter expertise, regional knowledge, and representation of communities of interest. AMWG member terms are limited to three (3) years from their date of appointment. Following completion of their first term, an AMWG member may request consideration for reappointment to an additional term. Reappointment is not guaranteed.
Typically, AMWG will hold two in-person meetings and one webinar meeting per fiscal year. Between meetings, AMWG members are expected to participate in committee work via conference calls and email exchanges. Members of the AMWG and its subcommittees serve without pay. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services of the AMWG, members may be reimbursed for travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the government service, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
Individuals who are federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.
Nominations should include a resume that provides an adequate description of the nominee's qualifications, particularly information that will enable the Department of the Interior to evaluate the nominee's potential to meet the membership requirements of the Committee and permit the Department of the Interior to contact a potential member. Please refer to the membership criteria stated in this notice.
Any interested person or entity may nominate one or more qualified individuals for membership on the AMWG. Nominations from the seven basin states, as identified in (a) above, need to be submitted by the respective Governors of those states. Persons or entities submitting nomination packages on the behalf of others must confirm that the individual(s) is/are aware of their nomination. Nominations must be postmarked no later than July 6, 2018 and sent to Brent Rhees, Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 125 S. State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake City, UT 84138.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other
5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping investigation Nos. 731-TA-1387-1391 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) resin from Brazil, Indonesia, Korea, Pakistan, and Taiwan, currently provided for in subheadings 3907.61.00 and 3907.69.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States,
May 4, 2018.
Mary Messer ((202) 205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to section 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.21 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the
On April 17, 2018, Cambria Company LLC, Eden Prairie, Minnesota filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV and subsidized imports of quartz surface products from China. Accordingly, effective April 17, 2018, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-606 and antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1416 (Preliminary).
Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on June 1, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4794 (June 2018), entitled
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
May 30, 2018.
Jordan Harriman (202-205-2610), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Effective November 6, 2017, the Commission established a general schedule for the conduct of the final phase of its investigations on fine denier polyester staple fiber (“fine denier PSF”) from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan,
The Commission's supplemental schedule is as follows: The deadline for filing supplemental party comments on Commerce's final determinations is June 12, 2018; the staff report in the final phase of these investigations will be placed in the nonpublic record on June 21, 2018; and a public version will be issued thereafter.
Supplemental party comments may address only Commerce's final antidumping duty determinations regarding fine denier PSF from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan. These supplemental final comments may not contain new factual information and may not exceed five (5) pages in length.
For further information concerning these investigations see the Commission's notice cited above and the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
By order of the Commission.
On September 26, 2017, the Acting Assistant Administrator, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause to Richard Hauser, M.D. (Registrant), of Clear Lake, Iowa. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration No. BH2140692 “pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5).” Government Exhibit (GX) 2 to Government's Request for Final Agency Action (RFAA), at 1. For the same reason, the Order also proposed the denial of “any pending application to modify or renew such registration.”
With respect to the Agency's jurisdiction, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant is the holder of Certificate of Registration No. BH2140692, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances as a practitioner in schedules II through V, at the registered address of Hauser Clinic Consultation Services, 308 14th Street, Clear Lake, Iowa.
Regarding the substantive ground for the proceeding, the Show Cause Order alleged that on April 28, 2017, the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notified Registrant of his “mandatory exclusion from participation in all Federal health care programs for a minimum period of five years pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a)” as a result of his guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to two counts of Health Care Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347.
The Show Cause Order notified Registrant of (1) his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement in lieu of a hearing, (2) the procedure for electing either option, and (3) the consequence for failing to elect either option.
The Government states that on October 4, 2017, a DEA Diversion Investigator (DI) served Registrant with a copy of the Show Cause Order. RFAA, at 3 (citing Declaration of DI attached as GX 4). Specifically, a DI assigned to the St. Louis Field Division's Des Moines Resident Office stated in a declaration that he was advised by Registrant's Attorney that Registrant could be served at his residence at 2310 20th Street, SW,
On February 9, 2018, the Government forwarded its Request for Final Agency Action and evidentiary record to my Office. In its Request, the Government represents that Registrant “has not requested a hearing or made any other filings in this matter.” RFAA, at 3. Based on the Government's representation and the record, I find that more than 30 days have passed since the Order to Show Cause was served on Registrant, and he has neither requested a hearing nor submitted a written statement in lieu of a hearing.
Registrant is a physician who is registered with the DEA as a practitioner in schedules II-V pursuant to Certificate of Registration BH2140692, at the registered address of Hauser Clinic Consultation Services, 308 14th Street, Clear Lake, Iowa.
On October 19, 2016, Registrant entered a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to a criminal information charging him with two counts of Health Care Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency “may take official notice of facts at any stage in a proceeding—even in the final decision.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 80 (1947) (Wm. W. Gaunt & Sons, Inc., Reprint 1979). In accordance with the APA and DEA's regulations, Registrant is “entitled on timely request to an opportunity to show to the contrary.” 5 U.S.C. 556(e);
On February 28, 2017, a federal court entered judgment and sentenced Registrant to a term of imprisonment of two months on each count, but provided that the sentences would “be served concurrently.”
The record also includes an April 28, 2017 letter from HHS notifying Applicant that he was “being excluded from participation in any capacity in the Medicare, Medicaid, and
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of Title 21, “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has been excluded . . . from participation in a program pursuant to section 1320a-7(a) of Title 42.” Under § 1320a-7(a)(1), HHS is required to exclude from participation
Here, Registrant was convicted of two counts of felony Health Care Fraud related to billing for services that were not rendered. The Agency has previously held that a mandatory exclusion based on a felony fraud conviction for overbilling warranted revocation of a Registrant's registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5).
Based on the 2017 HHS letter, I find that the evidence shows that HHS excluded Registrant from participation in any federal health care program based on his federal convictions for health care fraud related to overbilling. Registrant has thus been excluded pursuant to the mandatory exclusion provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7(a), and I hold that this unchallenged basis for his mandatory exclusion is sufficient to warrant revocation of his DEA registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(5).
Accordingly, I will order that his registration be revoked and deny any pending applications to renew or to modify his registration, as requested in the Show Cause Order. Order to Show Cause, at 1. Finally, because Registrant's DATA-Waiver authority is contingent on Registrant being a practitioner with a valid DEA registration,
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration No. BH2140692 and DATA-Waiver Identification Number XH2140692, issued to Richard Hauser, M.D., be, and they hereby are, revoked. I further order that any pending application of Richard Hauser to renew or to modify the above registration, be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective July 6, 2018.
9:00 a.m., Wednesday, June 20, 2018.
NonProfit HR, 1400 Eye Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005.
Open (with the exception of Executive Sessions).
Rutledge Simmons, Acting EVP & General Counsel/Secretary, (202) 760-4105;
The General Counsel of the Corporation has certified that in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(2) and (4) permit closure of the following portion(s) of this meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft supplemental environmental impact statement; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft plant-specific Supplement 58 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating license NPF-47 for an additional 20 years of operation for River Bend Station (RBS), Unit 1. The RBS is located in West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources.
Submit comments by July 23, 2018. Comments received after this date will be considered, if it is practical to do so, but the NRC staff is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Drucker, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2017-0141 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Please include Docket ID NRC-2017-0141 in the subject line of your comment submission, in order to ensure that the NRC is able to make your comment submission available to the public in this docket.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a draft plant-specific Supplement 58 to the GEIS for license renewal of nuclear plants, NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating license NPF-47 for an additional 20 years of operation for RBS. Supplement 58 to the GEIS includes the preliminary analysis that evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC's preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for RBS are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Peace Corps.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Peace Corps will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
Submit comments on or before August 6, 2018.
Comments should be addressed to Virginia Burke, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Virginia Burke can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1887 or email at
Virginia Burke, FOIA/Privacy Act Officer. Virginia Burke can be contacted by telephone at 202-692-1887 or email at
Estimated burden (hours) of the collection of information:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Notice of pendency of request.
This notice advises interested persons that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has received a request from Marlins Holdings LLC for an exemption from the bond or escrow requirement and contract requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, with respect to the Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan. A sale of assets by an employer that contributes to a multiemployer pension plan will not constitute a complete or partial withdrawal from the plan if the transaction meets certain conditions. One of these conditions is that the purchaser post a bond or deposit money in escrow for the five-plan-year period beginning after the sale. The PBGC is authorized to grant individual and class exemptions from this requirement. Before granting an exemption, the statute and PBGC regulations require PBGC to give interested persons an opportunity to comment on the exemption request. The purpose of this notice is to advise interested persons of the exemption request and solicit their views on it.
Comments must be submitted on or before July 23, 2018.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
All submissions received must include the agency's name (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, or PBGC) and refer to Marlins Holdings LLC. All comments received will be posted without change to PBGC's website,
Bruce Perlin, Assistant General Counsel (
Section 4204 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (ERISA), provides that a bona fide arm's-length sale of assets of a contributing employer to an unrelated party will not be considered a withdrawal if three conditions are met. These conditions, enumerated in section 4204(a)(1)(A)-(C), are that—
(A) the purchaser has an obligation to contribute to the plan with respect to covered operations for substantially the same number of contribution base units for which the seller was obligated to contribute;
(B) the purchaser obtains a bond or places an amount in escrow, for a period of five plan years after the sale, equal to the greater of the seller's average required annual contribution to the plan for the three plan years preceding the year in which the sale occurred or the seller's required annual contribution for the plan year preceding the year in which the sale occurred; and
(C) the contract of sale provides that if the purchaser withdraws from the plan within the first five plan years beginning after the sale and fails to pay any of its liability to the plan, the seller shall be secondarily liable for the liability it (the seller) would have had but for section 4204.
The bond or escrow described above would be paid to the plan if the purchaser withdraws from the plan or fails to make any required contributions to the plan within the first five plan years beginning after the sale. Additionally, section 4204(b)(1) of ERISA provides that if a sale of assets is covered by section 4204, the purchaser assumes by operation of law the contribution record of the seller for the plan year in which the sale occurred and the preceding four plan years.
Section 4204(c) of ERISA authorizes the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) to grant individual or class variances or exemptions from the purchaser's bond/escrow requirement of section 4204(a)(1)(B) when warranted. The legislative history of section 4204 indicates a Congressional intent that the statute be administered in a manner that assures protection of the plan with the least practicable intrusion into normal business transactions. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 96th Cong., 2nd Sess., S.1076,
Under the PBGC's regulation on variances for sales of assets (29 CFR part 4204), a request for a variance or exemption from the bond/escrow requirement under any of the tests established in the regulation (29 CFR parts 4204.12 & 4204.13) is to be made to the plan in question. The PBGC will consider a variance or exemption request only when the request is not based on satisfaction of one of the four regulatory tests under regulation sections 4204.12 and 4204.13 or when the parties assert that the financial information necessary to show satisfaction of one of the regulatory tests is privileged or confidential financial information within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (Freedom of Information Act).
Under section 4204.22 of the regulation, the PBGC shall approve a request for a variance or exemption if it determines that approval of the request is warranted, in that it—
(1) would more effectively or equitably carry out the purposes of Title IV of the Act; and
(2) would not significantly increase the risk of financial loss to the plan.
Section 4204(c) of ERISA and section 4204.22(b) of the regulation require the PBGC to publish a notice of the pendency of a request for a variance or exemption in the
The PBGC has received a request from Marlins Holdings LLC (the “Purchaser”) for an exemption from the bond or escrow requirement and contract requirements of section 4204(a)(1)(B) and (C) with respect to its purchase of the Miami Marlins Major League Baseball franchise from Miami Marlins, L.P. (the “Seller”) on February 21, 2018. In the request, the Purchaser represents among other things that:
1. The Seller was obligated to contribute to the Major League Baseball Players Benefit Plan (the “Plan”) for certain employees of the sold operations.
2. The Purchaser has agreed to assume the obligation to contribute to the Plan for substantially the same number of contribution base units as the Seller.
3. The Seller has agreed to be secondarily liable for any withdrawal liability it would have had with respect to the sold operations (if not for section 4204) should the Purchaser withdraw from the Plan and fail to pay its withdrawal liability.
4. The estimated amount of the withdrawal liability of the Seller with respect to the operations subject to the sale is $19,169,342.
5. The amount of the bond/escrow established under section 4204(a)(1)(B) is $4,781,000.
6. Major League Baseball has a unique structure in which the Plan is funded from the Major League Central Fund (the “Central Fund”), maintained and administered by the Commissioner of Baseball. Under this structure, contributions to the Plan for all participating employers are paid by the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball from the Central Fund on behalf of each participating employer in satisfaction of the employer's pension liability under the Plan's funding agreement. The monies in the Central Fund are derived directly from common revenues related to the All-Star Game, post-season games, certain media rights and other common revenues (collectively, the “Revenues”).
7. In support of the exemption request, the requester asserts that, “the Plan is funded from the Central Fund that is maintained and administered by the Commissioner of Baseball.” Major League Baseball pays contributions directly to the Plan from the Central Fund. Further, the requester asserts that, “the Plan enjoys a substantial degree of security with respect to contributions on behalf of the Clubs. A change in ownership of a Club does not affect the obligation of the Central Fund to fund the Plan. As such, approval of this exemption request would not increase the risk of financial loss to the Plan.”
8. A complete copy of the request was sent to the Plan and to the Major League Baseball Players Association by certified mail, return receipt requested.
All interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the pending exemption request to the above address. All comments will be made a part of the record. The PBGC will make the comments received available on its website,
Issued in Washington, DC.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning negotiated service agreements. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service has filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The requests(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the market dominant or the competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the market dominant or the competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern market dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to adopt co-location services and fees in connection with the re-launch of trading on the Exchange and to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates (the “Price List”) to provide for such co-location services. The Exchange also proposes to delete the current fees and credits set forth on the Price List. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt co-location services and fees in connection with the re-launch of trading on the Exchange and to amend the Price List to provide for such co-location services. The Exchange also proposes to delete the current fees and credits set forth on the Price List.
On February 1, 2017, the Exchange ceased trading operations.
In connection with the anticipated re-launch of the Exchange's trading operations, the Exchange proposes to offer the same co-location services and fees offered by its affiliates, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”), NYSE American LLC (“NYSE American”), and New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” and, together, the “Affiliate SROs”).
The Exchange requests that the proposed rule change become both effective and operative immediately upon filing.
The proposed services and fees would allow Users
As is true for the Affiliate SROs and as specified in the proposed Price List, a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location service charged by the Affiliate SROs.
As with the Affiliate SROs' co-location services, Users that receive co-location services from the Exchange would not receive any means of access to the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from or superior to that of Users that do not receive co-location services.
As with the co-location services of the Affiliate SROs, (i) neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof (
The Exchange proposes to adopt the definitions of “Affiliate,” “Aggregate Cabinet Footprint,” “Hosted Customer,” “Hosting User,” and “User” as set forth in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists. Specifically, the Exchange proposes the following definitions:
• An “Affiliate” of a User is any other User or Hosted Customer that is under 50% or greater common ownership or control of the first User.
• “Aggregate Cabinet Footprint” of a User or Hosted Customer is (a) for a User, the total kW of the User's cabinets, including both partial and dedicated cabinets, and (b), for a Hosted Customer, the total kW of the portion of the Hosting User's cabinet, whether partial or dedicated, allocated to such Hosted Customer.
• A “Hosted Customer” means a customer of a Hosting User that is hosted in a Hosting User's co-location space.
• A “Hosting User” means a User of co-location services that hosts a Hosted Customer in the User's co-location space.
• A “User” means any market participant that requests to receive co-location services directly from the Exchange.
As in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists, the Exchange would specify that the definitions were for purposes of the co-location fees only.
The Exchange proposes to adopt General Notes 1 through 4 as set forth in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists, subject to the differences discussed below.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the following General Note 1:
A User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location service pursuant to this Price List shall not be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location service charged by the Exchange's affiliates New York Stock Exchange LLC (NYSE), NYSE American LLC (NYSE American) and NYSE Arca, Inc. (NYSE Arca).
To qualify for a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, a User must meet the following conditions: (1) It must purchase only one Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; (2) the User and its Affiliates must not currently have a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle; and (3) after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, will have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW.
• A User requesting a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle will be required to certify to the Exchange (a) whether any other Users or Hosted Customers are Affiliates of the certificating User, and (b) that after the purchase of the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the User, together with its Affiliates, would have an Aggregate Cabinet Footprint of no more than 2 kW. The certificating User will be required to inform the Exchange immediately of any event that causes another User or Hosted Customer to become an Affiliate. The Exchange shall review available information regarding the entities and may request additional information to verify the Affiliate status of a User or Hosted Customer. The Exchange shall approve a request for a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle unless it determines that the certification is not accurate.
• If a User that has purchased a Partial Cabinet Solution bundle becomes affiliated with one or more other Users or Hosted Customers and thereby no longer meets the conditions for access to the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, or if the User otherwise ceases to meet the conditions for access to the Partial Cabinet Solution bundle, the Exchange will no longer offer it to such User and the User will be charged for each of the services individually, at the price for each such service set out in the Price List. Such price change would be effective as of the date that the User ceased to meet the conditions.
In addition, a User that changes its Partial Cabinet Solution bundle from one option to another will not be subject to a second initial charge, but will be required to pay the difference, if any, between the bundles' initial charges.
The initial and monthly charge for 2 bundles of 24 cross connects will be waived for a User that is waitlisted for a cage for the duration of the waitlist period, provided that the cross connects may only be used to connect the User's non-contiguous cabinets. The charge will no longer be waived once a User is removed from the waitlist.
• If a waitlist is created, a User seeking a new cage will be placed on the waitlist based on the date a signed order for the cage is received.
• A User that turns down a cage because it is not the correct size will remain on the waitlist. A User that requests to be removed or that turns down a cage that is the size that it requested will be removed from the waitlist.
• A User that is removed from the waitlist but subsequently requests a cage will be added back to the bottom of the waitlist, provided that, if the User was removed from the waitlist because it turned down a cage that is the size that it requested, it will not receive a second waiver of the charge.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the following General Note 4:
When a User purchases access to the LCN or IP network, it receives the ability to access the trading and execution systems of the NYSE, NYSE American, NYSE Arca and NYSE National (Exchange Systems), subject, in each case, to authorization by the NYSE, NYSE American, NYSE Arca or NYSE National, as applicable. Such access includes access to the customer gateways that provide for order entry, order receipt (
When a User purchases access to the LCN or IP network it receives connectivity to any of the Included Data Products that it selects, subject to any technical provisioning requirements and authorization from the provider of the data feed. Market data fees for the Included Data Products are charged by the provider of the data feed. A User can change the Included Data Products to which it receives connectivity at any time, subject to authorization from the provider of the data feed. The Exchange is not the exclusive method to connect to the Included Data Products.
The Included Data Products are as follows:
The Exchange proposes the same services and fees set forth in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists under “Initial Fee per Cabinet”; “Monthly Fee per Cabinet”; “Cabinet Upgrade Fee”; “PNU Cabinet”; and “Cage Fees” (collectively, the “Cabinet-Related Fees”).
The Exchange notes that the Cabinet Upgrade Fees in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists have a parenthetical setting forth lower fees for a User that submitted a written order for a Cabinet Upgrade by January 31, 2014, provided that the Cabinet Upgrade became fully operational by March 31, 2014. Because a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location service would not be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location service charged by the Affiliate SROs and such Users may already be subject to this different charge based on the Price List of an Affiliate SRO, the Exchange proposes to maintain the information regarding the lower price on its Price List.
The Exchange proposes to add the following fees and language to its Price List:
The Exchange proposes to adopt the same services and fees set forth in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists under “LCN Access”; “Bundled Network Access”; “Partial Cabinet Solution bundles”; “IP Network Access”; “Testing and Certification IP Network Access”; “Wireless Connections for Third Party Data”; “Virtual Control Circuit between two Users”; “Hosting Fee”; “Data Center Fiber Cross Connect”; “Connection to Time Protocol Feed” and “Expedite Fee” (collectively, the “Access and Service Fees”).
The Exchange notes that the description of the charge for the wireless connection of Toronto Stock Exchange (“TSX”) in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists includes a statement that “Customers with an existing wireless connection to TSX at the time the Exchange makes the service available will not be subject to an initial charge or receive 30-day testing period”. Because the wireless connection to the TSX has become effective, the statement is obsolete. Accordingly, the Exchange does not propose to include the statement on its Price List.
The Exchange proposes to add the following fees and language to its Price List:
The Exchange proposes to adopt the same services and fees set forth in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists under “Change Fee”; “Initial Install Services”; “Hot Hands Service”; “Shipping and Receiving”; “Badge Request”; “External Cabinet Cable Tray”; “Custom External Cabinet Cable Tray” and “Visitor Security Escort” (collectively, the “Service-related Fees”) and related note, as follows.
In order to be able to meet its obligation to accommodate demand, and in particular to make available more contiguous, larger spaces for new and existing Users, if necessary, the Exchange would exercise its right to move some Users' equipment within the data center (“Migration”). To manage the process for a future Migration, the Exchange proposes to put the same Migration procedures in place as the Affiliate SROs, as follow:
• First, the Exchange would identify Users that would be required to move in the Migration based on (a) the current location of the User and its current equipment and power requirements and (b) the availability of another location in the Data Center that would accommodate the equipment and power requirements for which such User currently subscribes. No User would be required to move more than once within any 12-month period.
• Second, the Exchange would notify a User in writing (the “Notice”) that the User's equipment and network connections in the Data Center were to be moved as part of the Migration. The Notice would identify the 90-day period during which the User must move its equipment, which period would commence at least 60 days from the date of the Notice. The exact date or dates for the move for each User would be agreed upon between the User and the Exchange. If a move date or dates cannot be agreed on, the Exchange would schedule the move for a date or dates no later than 180 days after the date of the Notice.
• Third, each User's move would be facilitated by the Exchange in cooperation with the User, including the un-racking and re-racking of all of the User's equipment, and the re-installation of the User's networking connections, and the Exchange would make reasonable efforts to ensure that the moves take place outside of the Exchange's hours for business.
• Fourth, in connection with facilitating each User's move, the Exchange proposes to waive certain fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to waive:
○ The monthly recurring fees for the User's existing space, based on the rate of the monthly recurring fees that the User is paying as of the date of the Notice, for the month during which the User's move takes place. This waiver of the monthly recurring fees would mean that the User would not incur these fees for the period of overlapping use of the equipment and services in the old and the new locations, as long as the move is completed within one month.
○ all Service-Related Fees that the User would incur if such a move were to take place at a User's request with respect to the User's existing services and equipment.
○ for the month following the completion of a User's move, the monthly recurring charges for that User, based on the rate of the monthly recurring fees that the User is paying as of the date of the Notice, in consideration for the Migration.
The Exchange proposes to add a note to each Service-Related Fee outlining the Migration process, as in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists.
The Exchange proposes to adopt the same services and fees set forth in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists under “Connectivity to Third Party Systems, Data Feeds, Testing and Certification Feeds, and DTCC.”
In order to obtain access to a Third Party System, a User would enter into an agreement with the relevant third party content service provider, pursuant to which the third party content service provider would charge the User for access to the Third Party System. The Exchange would then establish a unicast connection between the User and the relevant third party content service provider over the IP network. The Exchange would charge the User for the connectivity to the Third Party System. A User would only receive, and would only be charged for, access to Third Party Systems for which it enters into agreements with the third party content service provider.
With the exception of the ICE feed, the Exchange would have no ownership interest in the Third Party Systems. Establishing a User's access to a Third Party System would not give the Exchange any right to use the Third Party Systems. Connectivity to a Third Party System would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a User's connection to a Third Party System would not be through the Exchange's execution system.
The Exchange would charge a monthly recurring fee for connectivity to a Third Party System. Specifically, when a User requested access to a Third Party System, it would identify the applicable third party market or other content service provider and what bandwidth connection it required.
The Exchange proposes to add the following fees and language to its Price List:
Pricing for access to the execution systems of third party markets and other service providers (Third Party Systems) is for connectivity only. Connectivity to Third Party Systems is subject to any technical provisioning requirements and authorization from the provider of the data feed. Connectivity to Third Party Systems is over the IP network. Any applicable fees are charged independently by the relevant third party content service provider. The Exchange is not the exclusive method to connect to Third Party Systems.
In order to connect to a Third Party Data Feed, a User would enter into a contract with the relevant third party market or other content service provider, pursuant to which the content service provider would charge the User for the Third Party Data Feed. The Exchange would receive the Third Party Data Feed over its fiber optic network and, after the data provider and User enter into the contract and the Exchange receives authorization from the data provider, the Exchange would re-transmit the data to the User over the User's port. The Exchange would charge the User for the connectivity to the Third Party Data Feed. A User would only receive, and would only be charged for, connectivity to the Third Party Data Feeds for which it entered into contracts.
With the exception of the ICE Data Services, ICE and Global OTC feeds, the Exchange would have no affiliation with the sellers of the Third Party Data Feeds. It would have no right to use the Third Party Data Feeds other than as a redistributor of the data. The Third Party Data Feeds would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system. With the exception of the ICE feeds, the Third Party Data Feeds would not provide access or order entry to the execution systems of the third party generating the feed. The Exchange would receive Third Party Data Feeds via arms-length agreements and would have no inherent advantage over any other distributor of such data.
The Exchange would charge a monthly recurring fee for connectivity to each Third Party Data Feed. The monthly recurring fee would be per Third Party Data Feed, with the exception that the monthly recurring fee for the ICE Data Services Consolidated Feeds (including the ICE Data Services Consolidated FeedsShared Farm feeds), SR Labs—SuperFeeds and MSCI feeds would vary by the bandwidth of the connection. Depending on its needs and bandwidth, a User may opt to receive all or some of the feeds or services included in a Third Party Data Feed.
Third Party Data Feed providers may charge redistribution fees. The Exchange proposes that, when it receives a redistribution fee, it pass through the charge to the User, without change to the fee. The fee would be labeled as a pass-through of a redistribution fee on the User's invoice. As in the Affiliate SRO Price Lists, the Exchange proposes to add language to the Price List accordingly.
The Exchange proposes that it not charge Users that are third party markets or content providers for connectivity to their own feeds, as it understands that such parties generally receive their own feeds for purposes of diagnostics and
The Exchange proposes to add the following fees and language to its Price List:
Pricing for data feeds from third party markets and other content service providers (Third Party Data Feeds) is for connectivity only. Connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds is subject to any technical provisioning requirements and authorization from the provider of the data feed. Connectivity to Third Party Data Fees is over the IP network, with the exception that Users can connect to Global OTC and ICE Data Global Index over the IP network or LCN. Market data fees are charged independently by the relevant third party market or content service provider. The Exchange is not the exclusive method to connect to Third Party Data Feeds.
Third Party Data Feed providers may charge redistribution fees. When the Exchange receives a redistribution fee, it passes through the charge to the User, without change to the fee. The fee is labeled as a pass-through of a redistribution fee on the User's invoice. The Exchange does not charge third party markets or content providers for connectivity to their own feeds.
The Exchange proposes to add the following fees and language to its Price List:
The Exchange provides connectivity to third party testing and certification feeds provided by third party markets and other content service providers. Pricing for third party testing and certification feeds is for connectivity only. Connectivity to third party testing and certification feeds is subject to any technical provisioning requirements and authorization from the provider of the
In order to connect to DTCC, a User would enter into a contract with DTCC, pursuant to which DTCC would charge the User for the services provided. The Exchange would receive the DTCC feed over its fiber optic network and, after DTCC and the User entered into the services contract and the Exchange received authorization from DTCC, the Exchange would provide connectivity to DTCC to the User over the User's IP network port. The Exchange would charge the User for the connectivity to DTCC.
Connectivity to DTCC would not provide access or order entry to the Exchange's execution system, and a User's connection to DTCC would not be through the Exchange's execution system.
The Exchange proposes to add the following fees and language to its Price List:
Pricing for connectivity to DTCC feeds is for connectivity only. Connectivity to DTCC feeds is subject to any technical provisioning requirements and authorization from DTCC. Connectivity to DTCC feeds is over the IP network. Any applicable fees are charged independently by DTCC. The Exchange is not the exclusive method to connect to DTCC feeds.
In addition to adding Co-Location Fees to the Price List, the Exchange also proposes to delete the current fees and credits set forth on the Price List, including the Transaction Fees and Rebates, Market Data Revenue, Regulatory Fee, Market Data, and Connectivity Fees.
As noted above, the Exchange ceased operations on February 1, 2017 and in connection with the relevant filing, terminated the membership status of all Exchange ETP Holders.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that member organizations would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that offering co-location services would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would provide market participants with the option to co-locate, but would not require it. The Exchange would provide co-location services, including various options for cabinets, LCN and IP network access, connectivity to Included Data Products, Third Party Data Feeds, third party testing and certification feeds, DTCC and Wireless Third Party Data (collectively, “Connectivity”), access to Exchange Systems and Third Party Systems (together, “Access”), hosting, and services, as conveniences to Users. Use of any co-location services would be completely voluntary, and each market participant would be able to determine whether to use co-location services based on the requirements of its business operations. If it chose to co-locate, it would be able to determine what size of cabinet, form and latency of network, Access and Connectivity would best suits its needs. As alternatives to using co-location, a market participant would be able to access or connect to the Exchange through a connection to an Exchange access center outside the data center, a third party access center, or a third party vendor. The market participant could make such connection through a third party telecommunication provider, third party wireless network, the Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”) network, or a combination thereof.
Further, by having the Price List set forth the same co-location services and fees offered by the Affiliate SROs, with only non-substantive differences from the Affiliate SRO Price Lists,
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because the Price List would set forth: (a) The relevant definitions and General Notes, including a detailed description of the Access and Connectivity Users receive with their purchase of access to the LCN or IP network; (b) the Cabinet-Related Fees;
The Exchange believes that the proposal to provide Access and Connectivity would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because, by offering Access and Connectivity, the Exchange would give each User access and connectivity options. Providing Access and Connectivity would help each User tailor its data center operations to the requirements of its business operations by allowing it to select the form and latency of access and connectivity that best suits its needs. The Exchange would provide Access and Connectivity as conveniences to Users. As with all co-location services, use of Access or Connectivity would be completely voluntary. Each User would have several other access and connectivity options available to it. As alternatives to using the Access and Connectivity provided by the Exchange, a User would be able to access or connect to Exchange Systems, Third Party Systems, Included Data Products, Third Party Data Feeds, third party testing and certification feeds, DTCC and Wireless Third Party Data through another User or through a connection to an Exchange access center outside the data center, third party access center, or third party vendor. The User may make such connection through a third party telecommunication provider, third party wireless network, the SFTI network, or a combination thereof.
Users would not be required to use any of their bandwidth for Access or Connectivity unless they wished to do so. Rather, a User would only receive the Access and Connectivity that it selected, and a User could change what Access or Connectivity it receives at any time, subject to authorization from the third party system or data provider, the Exchange or relevant Affiliate SRO.
In addition, the Exchange believes that providing connectivity to testing and certification feeds would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because such feeds would provide Users an environment in which to conduct tests with non-live data, including testing for upcoming releases and product enhancements or the User's own software development, and allow Users to certify conformance to any applicable technical requirements.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that providing connectivity to DTCC would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would provide efficient connection to clearing, fund transfer, insurance, and settlement services.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposal to establish procedures and waive certain fees in connection with the movement of equipment at the data center in a Migration would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because it would allow the Exchange to have sufficient space in the data center to accommodate demand on an equitable basis for the foreseeable future. The Exchange believes that the waiver of overlapping monthly recurring charges, the waiver of the Service-Related Fees, and the waiver of one month of monthly recurring charges in a Migration would be reasonable because Users would be moving at the Exchange's request and the waivers would help to alleviate the burden on the Users that are required to move.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees changes are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act for multiple reasons. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services would be constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for colocation services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their colocation arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to-participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the market share and revenue of the affected exchange.
The Exchange believes that the services and fees proposed herein are equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, in addition to the services being completely voluntary, they would be available to all Users on an equal basis (
The Exchange believes that charging distinct fees for different co-location services would be reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory because not all Users would need, or wish, to utilize the same co-location services. The proposed variety of services would allow Users to select which co-location services to use, based on their business needs, and Users would only be charged for the services that they selected. By charging only those Users that utilize a co-location service the related fee, those Users that directly benefit from a service would support its cost.
Similarly, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable because they would allow the Exchange to defray or cover the costs associated with offering different co-location services while providing Users the benefit of such services, including the benefits of, among other things, choosing among the array of different options for cabinets, power, LCN and IP network access, Connectivity, Access, hosting and services; having an efficient connection to clearing, fund transfer, insurance, and settlement services; and having an environment in which to conduct tests with nonlive data and to certify conformance to any applicable technical requirements.
The Exchange believes that the proposed charges are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
The Exchange believes it is reasonable that redistribution fees charged by providers of Third Party Data Feeds would be passed through to the User, without change to the fee. If not passed through, the cost of the re-distribution fees would be factored into the proposed fees for connectivity to Third Party Data Feeds. The Exchange believes that passing through the fees makes them more transparent to the User, allowing the User to better assess the cost of the connectivity to a Third Party Data Feed by seeing the individual components of the cost,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to not charge third party markets or content providers for connectivity to their own Third Party Data Feeds, as the Exchange understands that such parties generally receive their own feeds for purposes of diagnostics and testing. The Exchange believes that facilitating such diagnostics and testing would remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to establish procedures and waive certain fees in connection with the movement of equipment at the data center in a Migration would provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and would not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers, because pursuant to the proposed procedures for selecting which Users would be required to move within the data center, a User would be required to move only if the Exchange would be able to accommodate such User's current space and power requirements at the new location, so as to minimize the disruption to the User. The Exchange believes that the waiver of overlapping monthly recurring charges, the waiver of the Service-Related Fees, and the waiver of one month of monthly recurring charges in a Migration would be reasonable because Users would be moving at the Exchange's request and the waivers would help to alleviate the burden on the Users that are required to move.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to delete the current fees and credits set forth on the Price List would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the Exchange ceased operations and terminated membership status of all ETP Holders, and therefore these fees and credits are now moot. Because the Exchange will file a separate proposed rule change to establish fees and credits for the re-launch of operations, the Exchange believes that leaving the current Price List as is could result in confusion among members, the public, and the Commission, which may believe that these are the fees that would be applicable for the re-launch. To reduce such potential confusion and to promote transparency, the Exchange proposes to delete these fees and credits.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that offering co-location services would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because such proposed co-location services would provide market participants with the option to co-locate, but would not require it. Use of any co-location services would be completely voluntary, and each market participant would be able to determine whether to use co-location services based on the requirements of its business operations. In this way, the proposed changes would enhance competition by providing market participants with additional options for their business operations.
In addition, the proposed co-location services would be available to all Users on an equal basis. All Users that voluntarily selected to receive co-location services, including cabinets, LCN and IP network access, Connectivity, Access and other services, would be charged the same amount for the same services. In the case of a Migration, all Users would be subject to the same proposed procedures for selecting which Users would be required to move within the data center and what fees would be affected.
Further, the proposed changes would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the Price List would set forth the same co-location services and fees offered by the Affiliate SROs, with only non-substantive differences from the Affiliate SRO Price Lists, allowing Users to benefit from having consistent products and pricing across the Exchange and the three Affiliate SROs.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the trading and other market activities of those market participants who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their operations. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are constrained by the active competition for the order flow of, and other business from, such market participants. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-location services, affected market participants will opt to terminate their co-location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of alternative strategies, including placing their servers in a physically proximate location outside the exchange's data center (which could be a competing exchange), or pursuing strategies less dependent upon the lower exchange-to- participant latency associated with co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but also the liquidity of the formerly co-located trading firms, which could have additional follow-on effects on the
For the reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive environment.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to: (1) Amend Rule 7.37E to amend in Exchange rules the Exchange's use of data feeds from NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”) for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance; and (2) amend Rule 7.45E to reflect that Archipelago Securities LLC (“Arca Securities”) would function as a routing broker for the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE National. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update and amend the table in Rule 7.37E that sets forth on a market-by-market basis the specific network processor and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. NYSE National intends to reopen trading and reactivate its connections to the securities information processors (“SIPs”). To reflect that, the Exchange proposes to revise Rule 7.37E to specify which data feeds the Exchange would use for NYSE National. Rule 7.37E currently provides that NYSE National uses the SIP data feeds as the primary source and does not have a secondary source. The Exchange proposes to use the direct data feeds for NYSE National and would use the SIP data feeds as a secondary source.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.45E to reflect that Arca Securities would function as a routing broker for the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE National. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.45E(c)(1) and (2) to reference NYSE National as an affiliate of the Exchange for the purposes of the inbound routing function performed by Arca Securities. The proposed rule change would provide more clarity and transparency to all the functions that Arca Securities performs on behalf of the Exchange and its affiliates, which now includes NYSE National. The Exchange is not proposing any substantive change to the rule.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would provide the public and investors with information about which data feeds the Exchange uses for execution and routing decisions, and provide clarity in Exchange rules that Arca Securities would perform the inbound routing function on behalf on the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE National.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to: (1) Amend Rule 7.37-E to specify in Exchange rules the Exchange's use of data feeds from NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”) for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance; and (2) amend Rule 7.45-E to reflect that Archipelago Securities LLC (“Arca Securities”) would function as a routing broker for the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE National. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update and amend the table in Rule 7.37-E that sets forth on a market-by-market basis the specific network processor and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. Specifically, the table would be amended to include NYSE National, which intends to reopen trading and reactivate its connections to the securities information processors (“SIPs”). To reflect that, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37-E to specify which data feeds the Exchange would use for NYSE National. As proposed, the Exchange would use the direct data feeds for NYSE National and would use the SIP data feeds as a secondary source.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.45-E to reflect that Arca Securities would function as a
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would provide the public and investors with information about which data feeds the Exchange uses for execution and routing decisions, and provide clarity in Exchange rules that Arca Securities would perform the inbound routing function on behalf on the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE National.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 16, 2017, New York Stock Exchange LLC (“NYSE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 22, 2017, notice was published in the
Moshe Rothman, Assistant Director, or Catherine Whiting, Special Counsel, at (202) 551-4990, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Trading and Markets, Room 7321 SP1,
Section 17A(c)(4)(B) of the Act provides that if the Commission finds that any transfer agent registered with the Commission is no longer in existence or has ceased to do business as a transfer agent, the Commission shall by order cancel that transfer agent's registration. On December 22, 2017, the Commission published notice of its intention to cancel the registration of certain transfer agents whom it believed were no longer in existence or had ceased doing business as transfer agents.
In the notice, the Commission identified 38 such transfer agents and stated that at any time after January 31, 2018, the Commission intended to issue an order canceling the registrations of any or all of the identified transfer agents. One transfer agent contacted the Commission to object to the cancellation of its registration, stating that it had not ceased doing business as a transfer agent. The Commission has decided not to cancel the registration of that transfer agent. None of the remaining 37 identified transfer agents contacted the Commission to object to the cancellation of their registrations.
Accordingly, the Commission is cancelling the registrations of the 37 transfer agents identified in the Appendix attached to this Order.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that each of the transfer agents whose name appears in the attached Appendix either is no longer in existence or has ceased doing business as a transfer agent.
For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE National BBO (“NYSE National BBO”), NYSE National Trades (“NYSE National Trades”) and NYSE National Integrated Feed (“NYSE National Integrated Feed”) market data feeds. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish NYSE National BBO, NYSE National Trades and NYSE National Integrated Feed (“NYSE National Market Data Feeds”).
NYSE National BBO is a NYSE National-only market data feed that provides vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with the same best-bid-and-offer information that NYSE National reports under the Consolidated Quotation Plan (“CQ Plan”) and the Plan Governing the Collection, Consolidation, and Dissemination of Quotation and Transaction Information for Nasdaq-Listed Securities Traded on Exchanges on an Unlisted Trading Privilege Basis (“OTC UTP Plan”). NYSE National BBO would include the best bids and offers (“NYSE National BBO Information”) for all securities that are traded on the Exchange. NYSE National will make the NYSE National BBO available over a single data feed, regardless of the markets on which the securities are listed.
NYSE National BBO would allow vendors, broker-dealers, and others (“NYSE National Vendors”) to consume and make available NYSE National BBO Information on a real-time basis. NYSE National Vendors may distribute the NYSE National BBO to both professional and non-professional subscribers. The Exchange would make NYSE National BBO Information available through the NYSE National BBO data feed no earlier than it makes that information available to the processor under the CQ Plan or the OTC UTP Plan, as applicable.
NYSE National Trades is a NYSE National-only market data feed that provides vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with the same last sale information that NYSE National reports under the Consolidated Tape Association Plan (“CTA Plan”) and the OTC UTP Plan for inclusion in the consolidated feeds. NYSE National Trades would include the real-time last sale price, time and size information (“NYSE National Last Sale Information”) for all securities that are traded on the Exchange. NYSE National will make the NYSE National Trades available over a single data feed, regardless of the markets on which the securities are listed.
NYSE National Trades would allow NYSE National Vendors to consume and make available NYSE National Last Sale Information on a real-time basis. NYSE National Vendors may distribute the NYSE National Trades to both professional and non-professional subscribers. The Exchange would make NYSE National Last Sale Information available through the NYSE National Trades data feed no earlier than it makes that information available to the processor under the CTA Plan or the OTC UTP Plan, as applicable. In addition to the information that the Exchange provides to the processor, NYSE National Last Sale Information will also include a unique sequence number that the Exchange assigns to each trade and that allows an investor to track the context of a trade through other Exchange market data products.
NYSE National Integrated Feed is a NYSE National-only market data feed that would provide vendors and subscribers on a real-time basis with a unified view of events, in sequence, as they appear on the NYSE National matching engines. The NYSE National Integrated Feed would include depth of book order data, last sale data, and security status updates (
Offering an integrated product addresses requests received from vendors and subscribers that would like to receive the data described above in an integrated fashion. An integrated data feed would provide greater efficiencies and reduce errors for vendors and subscribers that currently choose to integrate the data after receiving it from the Exchange. The Exchange believes that providing vendors and subscribers with the option of a market data product that both integrates existing products and includes additional market data would allow vendors and subscribers to choose the best solution for their specific businesses.
The Exchange proposes to offer the NYSE National Market Data Feeds through the Exchange's Liquidity Center Network (“LCN”), a local area network in the Exchange's Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is available to users of the Exchange's co-location services. The Exchange would also offer the NYSE National Market Data Feeds through the Exchange's Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”) network, through which all other users and members access the Exchange's trading and execution systems and other proprietary market data products.
At this time, the Exchange does not intend to charge any fees associated with the receipt of NYSE National BBO, NYSE National Trades or NYSE National Integrated Feed. The Exchange will submit a proposed rule change to the Commission should it determine to charge fees associated with the receipt of NYSE National BBO, NYSE National Trades or NYSE National Integrated Feed. The Exchange will announce the date that the NYSE National Market Data Feeds would be available through a NYSE National Market Data Notice.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act (“Act”),
The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing investors with new options for receiving market data as requested by market data vendors and purchasers. The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to the real-time information contained in the NYSE National Market Data Feeds.
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker
Efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
The Exchange further notes that the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's product, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, as well as the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data feeds, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives as their individual business cases warrant.
The NYSE National Market Data Feeds will help to protect a free and open market by providing additional data to the marketplace and by giving investors greater choices. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the products will be available to all of the Exchange's customers and broker-dealers through both the LCN and SFTI.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The NYSE National Market Data Feeds provide investors with new options for receiving market data, which was a primary goal of the market data amendments
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to: (1) Amend Rule 7.37 to specify in Exchange rules the Exchange's use of data feeds from NYSE National, Inc. (“NYSE National”) for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance; and (2) amend Rule 17 to reflect that Archipelago Securities LLC (“Arca Securities”) would function as a routing broker for the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE National. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update and amend the table in Rule 7.37 that sets forth on a market-by-market basis the specific network processor and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. Specifically, the table would be amended to include NYSE National, which intends to reopen trading and reactivate its connections to the securities information processors (“SIPs”). To reflect that, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37 to specify which data feeds the Exchange would use for NYSE National. As proposed, the Exchange would use the direct data feeds for NYSE National and would use the SIP data feeds as a secondary source.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 17 to reflect that Arca Securities would function as a routing broker for the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE National. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 17(c)(2)(A) and (B) to reference NYSE National as an affiliate of the Exchange for the purposes of the inbound routing function performed by Arca Securities. The proposed rule change would provide more clarity and transparency to all the functions that Arca Securities performs on behalf of the Exchange and its affiliates, which now includes NYSE
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed change is not designed to address any competitive issue but rather would provide the public and investors with information about which data feeds the Exchange uses for execution and routing decisions, and provide clarity in Exchange rules that Arca Securities would perform the inbound routing function on behalf on the Exchange's affiliate, NYSE National.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Maine (FEMA-4367-DR), dated 05/30/2018.
Issued on 05/30/2018.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/30/2018, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 155486 and for economic injury is 155490.
New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Corporation (NOPB Corp.), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7) for its extension of temporary overhead trackage rights on rail lines of Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC) in New Orleans, La., from IC milepost 906.4 at East Bridge Junction in Shrewsbury to IC milepost 900.8 at Orleans Junction in New Orleans and from IC milepost 444.2 at Orleans Junction to IC milepost 443.5 at Frellsen Junction in New Orleans, a total distance of approximately 6.3 miles (the Line).
NOPB Corp. states that it is a switching and terminal railroad and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans that provides terminal, interline, and intermediate switching services to local shippers and six Class I railroads in the New Orleans area. NOPB Corp. further states that it began operations on February 1, 2018, upon acquisition of all the railroad operating assets of the Public Belt Railroad Commission of the City of New Orleans (Public Belt).
According to NOPB Corp., pursuant to a September 16, 2016 temporary trackage rights agreement and subsequent amendment dated December 28, 2016, between Public Belt and IC, Public Belt previously obtained temporary overhead trackage rights on the Line to interchange traffic with Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) on KCS trackage in New Orleans on a trial basis.
According to NOPB Corp., pursuant to a second amendment to the temporary trackage rights agreement, dated January 31, 2018, the parties have agreed to a further extension of the temporary overhead trackage rights until January 31, 2020.
NOPB Corp. states that the traffic subject to the trackage rights does not involve an interchange commitment that limits interchange with a third-party connecting carrier. (
Unless stayed, the exemption will be effective on June 20, 2018 (30 days after the verified notice was filed).
As a condition to this exemption, any employees affected by the acquisition of the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than June 13, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36198, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Thomas J. Litwiler, Fletcher & Sippel LLC, 29 North Wacker Drive, Suite 920, Chicago, IL 60606.
According to NOPB Corp., this action is categorically excluded from environmental review under 49 CFR 1105.6(c).
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) an approximately 3.3-mile portion of the property commonly known as the Delco Industrial Lead in Middlesex County, N.J., from milepost 33.1 to milepost 36.4 (the Line). NJ Transit states that, under the proposed transaction, Conrail would transfer to NJ Transit the real property and railroad fixtures associated with the Line. According to NJ Transit, Conrail will retain an exclusive operating easement to continue to provide freight rail service over the Line.
NJ Transit states that, pursuant to a 1984 trackage rights agreement (1984 Agreement), it and Conrail have jointly used the Line for many years.
NJ Transit certifies that, because it will not conduct any rail carrier operations on the Line, its projected revenues from freight operations will not result in the creation of a Class I or Class II carrier.
NJ Transit states that it will consummate the proposed transaction at the conclusion of this exemption proceeding. The earliest this transaction may be consummated is June 20, 2018, the effective date of the exemption (30 days after the verified notice of exemption was filed).
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than June 13, 2018 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. FD 36195, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on Charles A. Spitulnik, Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell LLP, 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at
By the Board, Scott M. Zimmerman, Acting Director, Office of Proceedings.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meetings.
On Tuesday, June 12, 2018, PHMSA will host two public meetings. The first meeting—led by PHMSA—will solicit public input on current proposals and discuss potential new work items for inclusion in the agenda of the 53rd session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods (UNSCOE TDG). The second meeting—led by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)—will discuss proposals in preparation for the 35th session of the United Nations Sub-Committee of Experts on the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (UNSCEGHS).
Both public meetings will take place on Tuesday, June 12, 2018.
Both public meetings will take place at DOT Headquarters, West Building, Oklahoma City Conference Room, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Mr. Steven Webb or Mr. Aaron Wiener, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-8553.
Conference call-in and “Skype meeting” capability will be provided for both meetings. Specific information on such access will be posted when available at
The primary purpose of PHMSA's meeting is to prepare for the 53rd session of the UNSCOE TDG. This session represents the third meeting scheduled for the 2017-2018 biennium. UNSCOE will consider proposals for the 21st Revised Edition of the
General topics on the agenda for the UNSCOE TDG meeting include:
• Explosives and related matters;
• Listing, classification, and packing;
• Electric storage systems;
• Transport of gases;
• Global harmonization of regulations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods with the Model Regulations;
• Guiding principles for the Model Regulations;
• Cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency;
• New proposals for amendments to the Model Regulations;
• Issues relating to the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS); and
• Miscellaneous pending issues.
Following the 53rd session of the UNSCOE TDG, a copy of the Sub-Committee's report will be available at the UN Transport Division's website at
The
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments should be submitted by July 6, 2018.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4406, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or email
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, and submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension of currently approved collections. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A
Written comments should be submitted by July 6, 2018.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4406, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or Email
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, and submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department concerning consumer protection. Comments should address whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for extension of currently approved collections. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of information was published on March 28, 2018. Eleven comments were received. None pertained to this Information Collection Request and will not be addressed by the Department at this time.
Written comments should be submitted by July 6, 2018.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34-414, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4406, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or EMAIL
Not only is it imperative that carriers and charter operators retain source documentation, but it is critical that we ensure that DOT has access to these records. Given DOT's established information needs for such reports, the underlying support documentation must be retained for a reasonable period of time. Absent the retention requirements, the support for such reports may or may not exist for audit/validation purposes and the relevance and usefulness of the carrier submissions would be impaired, since the data could not be verified to the source on a test basis.
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed record retention requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department. Comments should address whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of Transportation.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the Information Collection Request, abstracted below, is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget for extension of currently approved reporting requirement. A
Written comments should be submitted by July 6, 2018.
Jeff Gorham, Office of Airline Information, RTS-42, Room E34, OST-R, BTS, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone Number (202) 366-4406, Fax Number (202) 366-3383 or email
The Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (44 U.S.C. 3501 note), requires a statistical agency to clearly identify information it collects for non-statistical purposes. BTS hereby notifies the respondents and the public that BTS uses the information it collects under this OMB approval for non-statistical purposes including, but not limited to, publication of both Respondent's identity and its data, and submission of the information to agencies outside BTS for review, analysis and possible use in regulatory and other administrative matters.
Comments are invited on whether the proposed retention of records is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department of Transportation.
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR